1000000030

gure, rtCpeas thoCe efpecíally IVhich are known by the

Bul G.:1

ÍI

in¡fl/ildj ,wij(, arld.J/lI'uJÍlh pufc.'lfm:

name of plain fimplc fyllogiCms; that is, IVhich are bound·

d.m,'

to thm propofitions, all fimple, and where the ex,

nm!m

h, dw nOlbing Dul whal

ÍI

D,jl.

tremes and middle term

ar~

conneaed according tO the

H~re

rhe antecedenr or firl! part of thecondirional pro.

{ules laid dOlVn above, But as the mind is not tied pofition is ell.bliOled in the

minor,

and rhe confequeot

dOIVn to any one preciCeform of reaConing, but Cometimes or Cecond pan,ia the conelufion; whence' the fyllogifm

makes uCe of more, CQmetimes of feIVer premill'es, and ¡tCelf i, 3n cxample of the

""dul pon,m,

Bur if we, on

often \akes in campound and coaditional propofirions, it the contrary, fuppoCe, that the

",in"

rejeas the conCe.

may not be amifs to take notice of the differeat forms quent; thea ir is apparent, that the concluGon mu(1 alCo

derived from this Cource. and explain the rule by which rejea the antecedent. In this

caC~

we are faid tO argue

the mind c,onduas itfe!f io the ufe ,of.rhem. "

from the remoyal of ihe conCequenr ro the remo'al of

When,

any fylloglfm, the

ma;"

ISacondluon,l pro. the antedeot, aod rbe particular mood or fpecies of Cyllo.

poGtion, theCyllogifm

itCelfiStermedcondilional.

Tbus: , giCms thence ariGng is c.Jled by logicians tbe

modw

101-

Ihm il a Cod, h, .ugh!

D' worfhipped.

1,,1/;

becauCe in it botb aotecedent and conCequenr are

Bul Ih",

ÍI

God,'

rejeded or takeD aIVay,

appears by the

foll~",iDg

e,,·

Thmfore h, oughl lo D' worfhippd.

ample.

la this e"ample, rhe

major

is conditional, and th..e·

God w're nol

heing

inftnil' gooJn'ft ,.milh.'·

fore the

fyllogiCI~ ~rCelf

is a1Co o.f rhe kind cllled by that

weuld b, cDllful1 Ih, ¡,appimft

hil malum,

Dame. AH condmonal propoGuons are made up of tlVO

Bul G.d

JD(J

confuft Ih, happinrji o[ hÍl crealuru;

difiind partl : one exprefling the condirion upoa which

Thm(ore h,

a b,;ng'[ inftnil' goopn'fl.

Ihe predieate agrees or diCagrees \Vith rhe Cubjed, as in

Thefe twO Cpecies take in rhewhole clafs of

"ndilional

Ihis oow before us,

Ibere

God;

the other joiniog fyllogiCms, aod inelude all the poflible ways of arguing

C)r

,~isjoioing

the

(~id

predicate and

Cubj~d,

as here,

that lead to a legitimaie condilGoo; becauCe we eanaol

. ugh! lo

worfhipprd.

Tbe (,rfi of rheCe pam, or that hm proceed by a coatraty proceCs of reaConing, thatis,

~hich

implies the conditioo, is calleq the

nnlmd,nl;

the from rhe removal of the antecedent to the removal

of !h~

feconJ, where we join or disjoin the predicate aod Cub· coofequent, or from the e(!ablifhiog of the cooCequeot

jea, has the name of the

"nfoqu,nl.

~he

enablifhing of the aateeedenl. For although the aore•

. In all propofitioos ,of this kind, Cuppofing them to be cedeOl al\'lays exprell'u Come real condition, wbich ooce

~xa,a

in poiot or form, the

~eI.tioo

bctween rhe antece· admitted necell'uily irñplies rhe conCequeot, yet it does

dent aad conCequent mu(! eve,r be truc,and real; that is, not follolV that there 'is therefore no orher cooditi'JD;

Ihe antecedent mun alIVays contain fome cemia and ge· aod if fo, thea, after,removing the aarecedeot, the coo–

nuine conditioo, which oecell'aríly implies rhe coaCequent

(equent may r1ill bold, becaufe of fome orher determioa–

for orherwiCe the propofirion itCelr will be falCe, and tion !har i/lfers it, When we fay:

ajlOIU il txpofo(i,

therefore ought not

be admitted ioto our reafonings.

fom,

lim, Iq Ihe rp)!

Ih, fun)

wil/ canlraf/

11.

«r–

Hence it follolVs, that when any c!lndirional propofilioo

lain drgm

h,al;

thepropofition is certainly true; aod

ís all'umed, if we admir rhe anrecedent of that propofirion, admitting Ihe antecedent, we mufl alfo admit the confe,

. we mufi at the

C~me

time nccell'dtily admir the conCe· quent, But as ,rhere are orher ways by which a HODe

quent

but ir

I'IC

rejed rhe coafequenr, we are ia likl O]ay gather heat, it will nor follow, from Ihe ceaJing o(

maoner bound ro rejeét alfo the anrecedenr. For as th, the before,menrioned conditioo, that therefore the cori–

antecedent always expreJTcs fome condirion, which oe· [equent cannot rake place. In other words, we caonOI

cell'arily implies the tru:h of the confequent;

admit- argue:

Bul Ih, jlone ha, nol b"en ,xpofod lo Ih, rOJl

ting 'the aorecedent we .lIolV of that condirioo, and there·

I~,

fur.; lherifof( milhir hal'

anj drgm

h,ol:

(ore ought alCo to admit rl.e conCequen!. In like

~anner

mu~h

as there a great

ma~y oth~r

.\Vays by \vhiCh

ir it appears thar the 'conCequent oughr ro be f(J eaed, heat mlghr have beeo commuolcared ro Ir. And If we

lile anteceden!'evidently mutl be fo roo

becauCe rhe 2d· cannor arglle from rhe removal of the anrecedent tO lhe

ñtitting ór the antmdcnt would necell'lrily imply rhe removal

rhe confeqllcnt, no more can we from the ad·

admiflioa a1Co or rhe conCeqlleat,

miflion of the confequent to the admiflioo of rhe antece.

, There are two ways of arguing in

h)'P,lh,lical

fyllo. denr

j '

becaufe as the confequent may" flow froma great

gifms. whieh lead to a cenain and unavoidable conelufion. varietyof diflmnt CuppoGrions, the allowing of ir does nOI

l'or as the

I/Iajor

is always a cooditional propofition. determine the preciCe C"ppofirion, bm only thar Come one

confiHing of ao antecedent and a conCequent; if rhe of rhem mufi take place. Thus, in the foregoing propo,

11/inor

adOlits Ihe antecedent, it is plain rhat rhe conclu· firion,

jlDI/'

ÍJ

extofod

fo/ll'

lillle. lo Ihe ra)'1 o[ Ih:

{¡on mun adOli t the conCequenr. This is called arguing

fun, il wi/l conlra f/ am lain de¡;m o[heal ;

adOlitting

(rom rhe adminion of the antecedent to the admiflion of the

conCeqll~nl,

viz, Ih,1

hOI mllraf/ed a

url.il/

the coofequenr, and connitutes rhat mood or fpedes of

d,gree

¡J(al.

we are nor rlicrefore bound to adOlir rhe

hJP<lh,lical

CyllogiCms which is

dininguifh~d

in rhe anteceden!,

Ihal

hal Dml fJll/e

lill/'

,x/,.fed lo 11" r,l)'1

f~hools

by the name of rhe

meduJ POI/(l/I,

much ar

Ih,fim,

b"auCe timeare manyorherclub IVhence that

by'it rhe whole condiriond propofition borh aotecedent hcat may hOl'c

pro~eedcd "

T hde rlV0.'v3ys of arguing,

:lOd conCequent is enabliOlld. Thus:

rhercfore, hold nO,r In

co~dltlonal

fyllog,fnu,

God

ÍJ

ioft/lil,1y wift, and af/I ••ilh

pal

f/ [m.

from the

~,";nr'l b",~~

acor.olllon:11propofiuon, "',e

dom, he dw nOlhillg bul whal

¡"ji.

obraln rhefpcclcs of conullIonal CrlloglfolS

",here