But if, in the above example, the writer had drawn
the Conclusion “All misers are selfish”
(that is, “All y are x"), this would be going
beyond his legitimate rights (since it would assert
the existence of y, which is not contained in
the Premisses), and you would very properly say “Fallacious
Conclusion!”
Now, when you read other treatises on Logic, you will
meet with various kinds of (so-called) ‘Fallacies’
which are by no means always so. For example,
if you were to put before one of these Logicians the
Pair of Premisses
“No honest men cheat;
No dishonest men are trustworthy.”
and were to ask him what Conclusion followed, he would
probably say “None at all! Your Premisses
offend against two distinct Rules, and are as
fallacious as they can well be!” Then suppose
you were bold enough to say “The Conclusion
is ’No men who cheat are trustworthy’,”
I fear your Logical friend would turn away hastily—perhaps
angry, perhaps only scornful: in any case, the
result would be unpleasant. I advise you
not to try the Experiment!
“But why is this?” you will say.
“Do you mean to tell us that all these Logicians
are wrong?” Far from it, dear Reader!
From their point of view, they are perfectly
right. But they do not include, in their system,
anything like all the possible forms of Syllogisms.
They have a sort of nervous dread of Attributes beginning
with a negative particle. For example, such
Propositions as “All not-x are y,” “No
x are not-y,” are quite outside their system.
And thus, having (from sheer nervousness) excluded
a quantity of very useful forms, they have made rules
which, though quite applicable to the few forms which
they allow of, are no use at all when you consider
all possible forms.
Let us not quarrel with them, dear Reader! There
is room enough in the world for both of us.
Let us quietly take our broader system: and,
if they choose to shut their eyes to all these useful
forms, and to say “They are not Syllogisms at
all!” we can but stand aside, and let them Rush
upon their Fate! There is scarcely anything of
yours, upon which it is so dangerous to Rush, as your
Fate. You may Rush upon your Potato-beds, or
your Strawberry-beds, without doing much harm:
you may even Rush upon your Balcony (unless it is
a new house, built by contract, and with no clerk of
the works) and may survive the foolhardy enterprise:
but if you once Rush upon your Fate—why,
you must take the consequences!
Cross questions.
“The Man in the Wilderness
asked of me
‘How many strawberries grow in the
sea?’”
__________
1. Elementary.
1. What is an ‘Attribute’?
Give examples.
2. When is it good sense to put “is”
or “are” between two names? Give
examples.
