登陆注册
5235300000063

第63章

It is clear then what conversion is, how it is effected in each figure, and what syllogism results. The syllogism per impossibile is proved when the contradictory of the conclusion stated and another premiss is assumed; it can be made in all the figures. For it resembles conversion, differing only in this: conversion takes place after a syllogism has been formed and both the premisses have been taken, but a reduction to the impossible takes place not because the contradictory has been agreed to already, but because it is clear that it is true. The terms are alike in both, and the premisses of both are taken in the same way. For example if A belongs to all B, C being middle, then if it is supposed that A does not belong to all B or belongs to no B, but to all C (which was admitted to be true), it follows that C belongs to no B or not to all B. But this is impossible: consequently the supposition is false: its contradictory then is true. Similarly in the other figures: for whatever moods admit of conversion admit also of the reduction per impossibile.

All the problems can be proved per impossibile in all the figures, excepting the universal affirmative, which is proved in the middle and third figures, but not in the first. Suppose that A belongs not to all B, or to no B, and take besides another premiss concerning either of the terms, viz. that C belongs to all A, or that B belongs to all D; thus we get the first figure. If then it is supposed that A does not belong to all B, no syllogism results whichever term the assumed premiss concerns; but if it is supposed that A belongs to no B, when the premiss BD is assumed as well we shall prove syllogistically what is false, but not the problem proposed. For if A belongs to no B, and B belongs to all D, A belongs to no D. Let this be impossible: it is false then A belongs to no B. But the universal affirmative is not necessarily true if the universal negative is false. But if the premiss CA is assumed as well, no syllogism results, nor does it do so when it is supposed that A does not belong to all B. Consequently it is clear that the universal affirmative cannot be proved in the first figure per impossibile.

But the particular affirmative and the universal and particular negatives can all be proved. Suppose that A belongs to no B, and let it have been assumed that B belongs to all or to some C. Then it is necessary that A should belong to no C or not to all C. But this is impossible (for let it be true and clear that A belongs to all C): consequently if this is false, it is necessary that A should belong to some B. But if the other premiss assumed relates to A, no syllogism will be possible. Nor can a conclusion be drawn when the contrary of the conclusion is supposed, e.g. that A does not belong to some B.

Clearly then we must suppose the contradictory.

Again suppose that A belongs to some B, and let it have been assumed that C belongs to all A. It is necessary then that C should belong to some B. But let this be impossible, so that the supposition is false: in that case it is true that A belongs to no B. We may proceed in the same way if the proposition CA has been taken as negative. But if the premiss assumed concerns B, no syllogism will be possible. If the contrary is supposed, we shall have a syllogism and an impossible conclusion, but the problem in hand is not proved.

Suppose that A belongs to all B, and let it have been assumed that C belongs to all A. It is necessary then that C should belong to all B. But this is impossible, so that it is false that A belongs to all B. But we have not yet shown it to be necessary that A belongs to no B, if it does not belong to all B. Similarly if the other premiss taken concerns B; we shall have a syllogism and a conclusion which is impossible, but the hypothesis is not refuted. Therefore it is the contradictory that we must suppose.

To prove that A does not belong to all B, we must suppose that it belongs to all B: for if A belongs to all B, and C to all A, then C belongs to all B; so that if this is impossible, the hypothesis is false. Similarly if the other premiss assumed concerns B. The same results if the original proposition CA was negative: for thus also we get a syllogism. But if the negative proposition concerns B, nothing is proved. If the hypothesis is that A belongs not to all but to some B, it is not proved that A belongs not to all B, but that it belongs to no B. For if A belongs to some B, and C to all A, then C will belong to some B. If then this is impossible, it is false that A belongs to some B; consequently it is true that A belongs to no B. But if this is proved, the truth is refuted as well; for the original conclusion was that A belongs to some B, and does not belong to some B. Further the impossible does not result from the hypothesis: for then the hypothesis would be false, since it is impossible to draw a false conclusion from true premisses: but in fact it is true: for A belongs to some B. Consequently we must not suppose that A belongs to some B, but that it belongs to all B.

Similarly if we should be proving that A does not belong to some B: for if 'not to belong to some' and 'to belong not to all' have the same meaning, the demonstration of both will be identical.

It is clear then that not the contrary but the contradictory ought to be supposed in all the syllogisms. For thus we shall have necessity of inference, and the claim we make is one that will be generally accepted. For if of everything one or other of two contradictory statements holds good, then if it is proved that the negation does not hold, the affirmation must be true. Again if it is not admitted that the affirmation is true, the claim that the negation is true will be generally accepted. But in neither way does it suit to maintain the contrary: for it is not necessary that if the universal negative is false, the universal affirmative should be true, nor is it generally accepted that if the one is false the other is true.

同类推荐
  • 浮邱子

    浮邱子

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • English Stories France

    English Stories France

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 送十五舅

    送十五舅

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 明太祖宝训

    明太祖宝训

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 佛说浴像功德经

    佛说浴像功德经

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
热门推荐
  • 中学生必背古诗词(新课标必读丛书)

    中学生必背古诗词(新课标必读丛书)

    诗词,是指主要以近体涛和律河为代表的中国传统诗歌。通常认为,诗更适合“言志”,词更适合“抒情”:诗是文学体裁的一种,通过有节奏和韵律的语言反映生活,抒发情感。
  • 与撒旦同行:替身王妃

    与撒旦同行:替身王妃

    简介:一个意外的穿越,她竟然遇到一个酷似她丈夫的男人拼命维护了自己的尊严,却又被当成携宝的逃犯…在被审问的过程中,竟然又被误认为是厉王爷那莫名失踪的王妃如烟…被害受伤,太医诊治之下竟然已有3个月的身孕,结果又引来一场滔天误会…本书分三部:第一部:替身王妃第二部:真假王妃第三部:绝代王妃
  • 十二缘生祥瑞经

    十二缘生祥瑞经

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 儿童趣味脑筋急转弯

    儿童趣味脑筋急转弯

    本书精选了近千条适合孩子阅读的脑筋急转弯,选条注重健康、趣味、巧妙,同时每页还设有幽默有趣的小拦目,让你在紧张的挑战中得到快乐与智慧的双重收获。
  • 诸经要集

    诸经要集

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 口供

    口供

    李富泉的案子侦破之后,石韬再也没有谈论过一句这个案子,不管是在何种情况下。有时,哪怕参与侦办这个案子的民警们,或队里的其他民警谈起这个案子,石韬都会突然厉声查问起其中某个人的工作,从而将他们的谈话中断。看来,这个案件的侦破不但没有像其他案件一样给他带来成就感,反而成为他的一块心病,甚至禁忌。时间长了,这个案件渐渐被大家埋葬在了记忆的深处。只在极偶然的情况下,比如在石韬看到某个电视节目的时候,会忽然触发他的某根神经,引起一阵愣怔。
  • 云歌大帝

    云歌大帝

    世无国界,亦无疆边,只存那光怪陆离,魑魅魍魉于世间作乱,而妖魔鬼邪则来之人心恶念。圣人曾云:一日无帝,万年难洗平清
  • 市郊的油田

    市郊的油田

    感谢一群想钱想疯掉的流民绝妙的金点子,绿贸房产公司在股市上大捞了一票,葛明礼获得了梦寐以求的机会。他把股市上合法赢来的钱投入了这块储备地的建设,三年过后,荒地成为历史,这里矗立起一个美丽的乳白色居住小区和一栋商场。楼盘销售得非常好,新区和中心城区来的市民都迷上了小区周围的好环境,放眼望去有河有树林,还有很清甜的空气。你看,每天上午各式各样的鸟群在天空飞过。有一些土生土长喜欢落单的褐色鸟,名叫黄白狼,它们喜欢飞临到新小区楼房屋顶的水箱上,呱呱叫喊着打量水泥建筑窗户里露出的人脸。它们凭经验在期待,只要这些房子里的动物走错一步,也能成为喙下肉食。对于鸟来说,只需要等待。人茫然无知。
  • 我在异界有座城

    我在异界有座城

    残酷而强大的楼城世界,拥有各类可升级的楼城,亿万楼城修士入侵万界,无人可以匹敌。唐震意外进入楼城世界,慢慢打造属于自己的势力,最终成为真正的至强者。【非跨界交易类型,主要内容以异界征战为主。】
  • 你好我的少年郎

    你好我的少年郎

    “喂!我叫许默!”曲纤尘看着眼前有点紧张的少年红着脸对自己喊到,只是淡淡的回道:“我知道!”“我...我可以和你做朋友吗?”少年眼神急切的看着曲纤尘,生怕她拒绝自己。“嗯...可以吧。”曲纤尘想了想回道,“那我们说好了!我们是朋友!”少年开心的说道,“嗯,还有事吗?没有的话我要回家了。”“没有了,再见!”曲纤尘就这样在少年的目送下离开了...