tion.

Judgments.

Universal Judgments are those in which the whole Explicanumber of objects within a sphere or class are judged Universal of,—as All men are mortal, or Every man is mortal ; the all in the one case defining the whole collectively, the every in the other defining it discretively. In such judgments the notion of a determinate wholeness or totality, in the form of omnitude or allness, is involved.

Individual

-what.

Individual Judgments are those in which, in like Singular or manner, the whole of a certain sphere is judged of, Judgments, but in which sphere there is found only a single object, or collection of single objects,-as Catiline is ambitious,-The twelve apostles were inspired. In such judgments the notion of determinate whole

a Vide Th. et Am. apud Am. In de Int., 8vo, ff. 72, 111-113. [In the first of these passages Ammonius, proceeding on a merely arithmetical calculation, enumerates sixteen varieties of the Proposition, any one of four quantities in the subject (all not all, none--not none or some) being capable of combination with any one of four quantities in the predicate.

But of these some are but verbal
varieties of the same judgment,
and others are excluded on material
grounds, so that his division finally
coincides with Aristotle's. In the
second passage Theophrastus is
cited in illustration of a very ob-
scure statement concerning the
opposition of indesignate proposi-
tions.-ED.]

LECT.
XIII.

Particular Judgments, -what.

Words

which serve

quantity in

Universal,

Individual,

cular Pro

ness or totality in the form of oneness, indivisible unity, is involved."

Particular Judgments are those in which, among the objects within a certain sphere or class, we judge concerning some indefinite number less than the whole,

-as Some men are virtuous-Many boys are courageous-Most women are compassionate; the indefinite plurality, within the totality, being here denoted by the words some, many, most. There are certain words to mark out which serve to mark out the quantity in the case of Universal, Individual, and Particular propositions. and Parti- The words which designate universality are all, the positions. whole of, every, both, each, none, no one, neither, always, everywhere, etc. The words which mark out particularity are some, not all, one, two, three, etc., sometimes, somewhere, etc. There are also terms which, though they do not reach to an universal whole, approximate to it, as many, most, almost all, the greatest part, etc., few, very few, hardly any, etc., which, in the common employment of language, and in reference to merely probable matter, may be viewed as almost tantamount to marks of universality.

Distinction of Universal

By logicians in general it is stated, that, in a logical and Indivi- relation, an Individual is convertible with an Universal Particular proposition; as in both something is predicated of a Judgments. whole subject, and neither admits of any exception.

dual from

But a Particular Judgment, likewise, predicates something of a whole subject, and admits of no exception; for it embraces all that is viewed as the subject, and excludes all that is viewed as not belonging to it. The whole distinction consists in this,-that, in Uni

a Individuum (proprium) signatum, The former of each, and the latter of and individuum vagum. So particu- each, corresponding.-Memoranda. lare signatum, and particulare vagum.

XIII.

versal and in Individual Judgments, the number of LECT. the objects judged of is thought by us as definite; whereas, in Particular Judgments, the number of such objects is thought by us as indefinite. That Individual Judgments do not correspond to Universal Judgments, merely in virtue of the oneness of their subject, is shown by this, that, if the individual be rendered indefinite, the judgment at once assumes the character of particularity. For example, the propositions,-A German invented the art of printing,—An Englishman generalised the law of gravitation,-are to be viewed as particular propositions. But, if we substitute for the indefinite expressions a German and an Englishman, the definite expressions Fust and Newton, the judgment obtains the form of an universal.

Judgments

cians, ad

the forms of

With regard to quantity, it is to be observed, say Categorical the logicians, that Categorical Judgments are those alone, acalone which admit of all the forms. "Hypothetical the logi and Disjunctive propositions are always universal. mit of all For in hypotheticals, by the position of a reason, there quantity. is posited every consequent of that reason; and in disjunctives the sphere or extension of the subject is so defined, that the disjunct attributes are predicated of the whole sphere. It may, indeed, sometimes seem as if in such propositions something were said of some, and, consequently, that the judgment is particular or indefinite. For example, as an hypothetical,-If some men are learned, then others are unlearned; as a disjunctive,-Those men who are learned are either philosophers or not. But it is easily seen that these judgments are essentially of a general character. In the first judgment, the real consequent is, then all others are unlearned; and in the second, the true subject is, all learned men,

248

LECT. for this is involved in the expression-Those men who are learned, etc."

XIII.

This doc

trine erro

neous.

Such is the doctrine of the Logicians. This I cannot but hold to be erroneous; for we can easily construct propositions, whether hypothetical or disjunctive, which cannot be construed either as universal or singular. For example, when we say, hypothetically,-If some Dodo is, then some animal is; or, disjunctively,Some men are either rogues or fools :-in either case, the proposition is indefinite or particular, and no ingenuity can show a plausible reason why it should be viewed as definite,—as general or individual.

a Krug, Logik, § 57, Anm. 4, p. 171 et seq.-ED. [Cf. Hoffbauer, Anfangsgründe der Logik, § 243; Sigwart, Logik, § 164 et seq., ed. 1835; Kiesewetter, Grundriss einer allge

meinen Logik, i. § 122; Schulze, Logik, § 60. Contra:-Esser, Logik, § 92, p. 177.-[See below, pp. 333, 334, note a.-ED.]

LECTURE XIV.

STOICHEIOLOGY.

SECTION II.-OF THE PRODUCTS OF THOUGHT.

II. APOPHANTIC.

JUDGMENTS-THEIR QUALITY, OPPOSITION, AND CONVERSION.

XIV.

Recapitula

THE first part of our last Lecture was occupied with LECT the doctrine of Judgments, considered as divided into Simple and Conditional; Simple being exclusively tion. Categorical, Conditional, either Hypothetical, Disjunctive, or Hypothetico-disjunctive. We then proceeded to treat of the Quantity of propositions, and, in this respect, I stated that they are either Definite or Indefinite; the Definite comprising the two subordinate classes of General or Universal, and of Singular or Individual propositions, while the Indefinite are correspondent to Particular propositions alone. In regard to the terms definite and indefinite, I warned you that I do not apply them in the sense given by logical writers. With them, Indefinite propositions denote those in which the quantity is not explicitly declared by one of the designatory terms, all, every, some, many, etc. Such propositions, however, ought to be called preindesignate (præindesignatæ, åтроσdióρioтоi), that is, not marked out by a prefix,—a term better adapted to indicate this external accident of their enunciation; for, in point of fact, these preindesignate propositions