In a.s.serting that the truth of a proposition depends on the conformity of import between its terms, as, for instance, that the proposition, Socrates is wise, is a true proposition, because Socrates and wise are names applicable to, or, as he expresses it, names of, the same person; it is very remarkable that so powerful a thinker should not have asked himself the question, But how came they to be names of the same person?
Surely not because such was the intention of those who invented the words. When mankind fixed the meaning of the word wise, they were not thinking of Socrates, nor, when his parents gave him the name of Socrates, were they thinking of wisdom. The names _happen_ to fit the same person because of a certain _fact_, which fact was not known, nor in being, when the names were invented. If we want to know what the fact is, we shall find the clue to it in the _connotation_ of the names.
A bird or a stone, a man, or a wise man, means simply, an object having such and such attributes. The real meaning of the word man, is those attributes, and not Smith, Brown, and the remainder of the individuals.
The word _mortal_, in like manner connotes a certain attribute or attributes; and when we say, All men are mortal, the meaning of the proposition is, that all beings which possess the one set of attributes, possess also the other. If, in our experience, the attributes connoted by _man_ are always accompanied by the attribute connoted by _mortal_, it will follow as a consequence, that the cla.s.s _man_ will be wholly included in the cla.s.s _mortal_, and that _mortal_ will be a name of all things of which _man_ is a name: but why? Those objects are brought under the name, by possessing the attributes connoted by it: but their possession of the attributes is the real condition on which the truth of the proposition depends; not their being called by the name. Connotative names do not precede, but follow, the attributes which they connote. If one attribute happens to be always found in conjunction with another attribute, the concrete names which answer to those attributes will of course be predicable of the same subjects, and may be said, in Hobbes"
language, (in the propriety of which on this occasion I fully concur,) to be two names for the same things. But the possibility of a concurrent application of the two names, is a mere consequence of the conjunction between the two attributes, and was, in most cases, never thought of when the names were introduced and their signification fixed. That the diamond is combustible, was a proposition certainly not dreamt of when the words Diamond and Combustible first received their meaning; and could not have been discovered by the most ingenious and refined a.n.a.lysis of the signification of those words. It was found out by a very different process, namely, by exerting the senses, and learning from them, that the attribute of combustibility existed in the diamonds upon which the experiment was tried; the number or character of the experiments being such, that what was true of those individuals might be concluded to be true of all substances "called by the name," that is, of all substances possessing the attributes which the name connotes. The a.s.sertion, therefore, when a.n.a.lysed, is, that wherever we find certain attributes, there will be found a certain other attribute: which is not a question of the signification of names, but of laws of nature; the order existing among phenomena.
3. Although Hobbes" theory of Predication has not, in the terms in which he stated it, met with a very favourable reception from subsequent thinkers, a theory virtually identical with it, and not by any means so perspicuously expressed, may almost be said to have taken the rank of an established opinion. The most generally received notion of Predication decidedly is that it consists in referring something to a cla.s.s, _i.e._, either placing an individual under a cla.s.s, or placing one cla.s.s under another cla.s.s. Thus, the proposition, Man is mortal, a.s.serts, according to this view of it, that the cla.s.s man is included in the cla.s.s mortal.
"Plato is a philosopher," a.s.serts that the individual Plato is one of those who compose the cla.s.s philosopher. If the proposition is negative, then instead of placing something in a cla.s.s, it is said to exclude something from a cla.s.s. Thus, if the following be the proposition, The elephant is not carnivorous; what is a.s.serted (according to this theory) is, that the elephant is excluded, from the cla.s.s carnivorous, or is not numbered among the things comprising that cla.s.s. There is no real difference, except in language, between this theory of Predication and the theory of Hobbes. For a cla.s.s _is_ absolutely nothing but an indefinite number of individuals denoted by a general name. The name given to them in common, is what makes them a cla.s.s. To refer anything to a cla.s.s, therefore, is to look upon it as one of the things which are to be called by that common name. To exclude it from a cla.s.s, is to say that the common name is not applicable to it.
How widely these views of predication have prevailed, is evident from this, that they are the basis of the celebrated _dictum de omni et nullo_. When the syllogism is resolved, by all who treat of it, into an inference that what is true of a cla.s.s is true of all things whatever that belong to the cla.s.s; and when this is laid down by almost all professed logicians as the ultimate principle to which all reasoning owes its validity; it is clear that in the general estimation of logicians, the propositions of which reasonings are composed can be the expression of nothing but the process of dividing things into cla.s.ses, and referring everything to its proper cla.s.s.
This theory appears to me a signal example of a logical error very often committed in logic, that of _?ste??? p??t????_, or explaining a thing by something which presupposes it. When I say that snow is white, I may and ought to be thinking of snow as a cla.s.s, because I am a.s.serting a proposition as true of all snow: but I am certainly not thinking of white objects as a cla.s.s; I am thinking of no white object whatever except snow, but only of that, and of the sensation of white which it gives me. When, indeed, I have judged, or a.s.sented to the propositions, that snow is white, and that several other things are also white, I gradually begin to think of white objects as a cla.s.s, including snow and those other things. But this is a conception which followed, not preceded, those judgments, and therefore cannot be given as an explanation of them. Instead of explaining the effect by the cause, this doctrine explains the cause by the effect, and is, I conceive, founded on a latent misconception of the nature of cla.s.sification.
There is a sort of language very generally prevalent in these discussions, which seems to suppose that cla.s.sification is an arrangement and grouping of definite and known individuals: that when names were imposed, mankind took into consideration all the individual objects in the universe, distributed them into parcels or lists, and gave to the objects of each list a common name, repeating this operation _toties quoties_ until they had invented all the general names of which language consists; which having been once done, if a question subsequently arises whether a certain general name can be truly predicated of a certain particular object, we have only (as it were) to read the roll of the objects upon which that name was conferred, and see whether the object about which the question arises is to be found among them. The framers of language (it would seem to be supposed) have predetermined all the objects that are to compose each cla.s.s, and we have only to refer to the record of an antecedent decision.
So absurd a doctrine will be owned by n.o.body when thus nakedly stated; but if the commonly received explanations of cla.s.sification and naming do not imply this theory, it requires to be shown how they admit of being reconciled with any other.
General names are not marks put upon definite objects; cla.s.ses are not made by drawing a line round a given number of a.s.signable individuals.
The objects which compose any given cla.s.s are perpetually fluctuating.
We may frame a cla.s.s without knowing the individuals, or even any of the individuals, of which it may be composed; we may do so while believing that no such individuals exist. If by the _meaning_ of a general name are to be understood the things which it is the name of, no general name, except by accident, has a fixed meaning at all, or ever long retains the same meaning. The only mode in which any general name has a definite meaning, is by being a name of an indefinite variety of things; namely, of all things, known or unknown, past, present, or future, which possess certain definite attributes. When, by studying not the meaning of words, but the phenomena of nature, we discover that these attributes are possessed by some object not previously known to possess them, (as when chemists found that the diamond was combustible), we include this new object in the cla.s.s; but it did not already belong to the cla.s.s. We place the individual in the cla.s.s because the proposition is true; the proposition is not true because the object is placed in the cla.s.s.
It will appear hereafter, in treating of reasoning, how much the theory of that intellectual process has been vitiated by the influence of these erroneous notions, and by the habit which they exemplify of a.s.similating all the operations of the human understanding which have truth for their object, to processes of mere cla.s.sification and naming. Unfortunately, the minds which have been entangled in this net are precisely those which have escaped the other cardinal error commented upon in the beginning of the present chapter. Since the revolution which dislodged Aristotle from the schools, logicians may almost be divided into those who have looked upon reasoning as essentially an affair of Ideas, and those who have looked upon it as essentially an affair of Names.
Although, however, Hobbes" theory of Predication, according to the well-known remark of Leibnitz, and the avowal of Hobbes himself,[18]
renders truth and falsity completely arbitrary, with no standard but the will of men, it must not be concluded that either Hobbes, or any of the other thinkers who have in the main agreed with him, did in fact consider the distinction between truth and error as less real, or attached less importance to it, than other people. To suppose that they did so would argue total unacquaintance with their other speculations.
But this shows how little hold their doctrine possessed over their own minds. No person, at bottom, ever imagined that there was nothing more in truth than propriety of expression; than using language in conformity to a previous convention. When the inquiry was brought down from generals to a particular case, it has always been acknowledged that there is a distinction between verbal and real questions; that some false propositions are uttered from ignorance of the meaning of words, but that in others the source of the error is a misapprehension of things; that a person who has not the use of language at all may form propositions mentally, and that they may be untrue, that is, he may believe as matters of fact what are not really so. This last admission cannot be made in stronger terms than it is by Hobbes himself;[19]
though he will not allow such erroneous belief to be called falsity, but only error. And he has himself laid down, in other places, doctrines in which the true theory of predication is by implication contained. He distinctly says that general names are given to things on account of their attributes, and that abstract names are the names of those attributes. "Abstract is that which in any subject denotes the cause of the concrete name.... And these causes of names are the same with the causes of our conceptions, namely, some power of action, or affection, of the thing conceived, which some call the manner by which anything works upon our senses, but by most men they are called _accidents_."[20]
It is strange that having gone so far, he should not have gone one step farther, and seen that what he calls the cause of the concrete name, is in reality the meaning of it; and that when we predicate of any subject a name which is given _because_ of an attribute (or, as he calls it, an accident), our object is not to affirm the name, but, by means of the name, to affirm the attribute.
4. Let the predicate be, as we have said, a connotative term; and to take the simplest case first, let the subject be a proper name: "The summit of Chimborazo is white." The word white connotes an attribute which is possessed by the individual object designated by the words "summit of Chimborazo;" which attribute consists in the physical fact, of its exciting in human beings the sensation which we call a sensation of white. It will be admitted that, by a.s.serting the proposition, we wish to communicate information of that physical fact, and are not thinking of the names, except as the necessary means of making that communication. The meaning of the proposition, therefore, is, that the individual thing denoted by the subject, has the attributes connoted by the predicate.
If we now suppose the subject also to be a connotative name, the meaning expressed by the proposition has advanced a step farther in complication. Let us first suppose the proposition to be universal, as well as affirmative: "All men are mortal." In this case, as in the last, what the proposition a.s.serts (or expresses a belief of) is, of course, that the objects denoted by the subject (man) possess the attributes connoted by the predicate (mortal). But the characteristic of this case is, that the objects are no longer _individually_ designated. They are pointed out only by some of their attributes: they are the objects called men, that is, possessing the attributes connoted by the name man; and the only thing known of them may be those attributes: indeed, as the proposition is general, and the objects denoted by the subject are therefore indefinite in number, most of them are not known individually at all. The a.s.sertion, therefore, is not, as before, that the attributes which the predicate connotes are possessed by any given individual, or by any number of individuals previously known as John, Thomas, &c., but that those attributes are possessed by each and every individual possessing certain other attributes; that whatever has the attributes connoted by the subject, has also those connoted by the predicate; that the latter set of attributes _constantly accompany_ the former set.
Whatever has the attributes of man has the attribute of mortality; mortality constantly accompanies the attributes of man.[21]
If it be remembered that every attribute is _grounded_ on some fact or phenomenon, either of outward sense or of inward consciousness, and that to _possess_ an attribute is another phrase for being the cause of, or forming part of, the fact or phenomenon upon which the attribute is grounded; we may add one more step to complete the a.n.a.lysis. The proposition which a.s.serts that one attribute always accompanies another attribute, really a.s.serts thereby no other thing than this, that one phenomenon always accompanies another phenomenon; insomuch that where we find the one, we have a.s.surance of the existence of the other. Thus, in the proposition, All men are mortal, the word man connotes the attributes which we ascribe to a certain kind of living creatures, on the ground of certain phenomena which they exhibit, and which are partly physical phenomena, namely the impressions made on our senses by their bodily form and structure, and partly mental phenomena, namely the sentient and intellectual life which they have of their own. All this is understood when we utter the word man, by any one to whom the meaning of the word is known. Now, when we say, Man is mortal, we mean that wherever these various physical and mental phenomena are all found, there we have a.s.surance that the other physical and mental phenomenon, called death, will not fail to take place. The proposition does not affirm _when_; for the connotation of the word _mortal_ goes no farther than to the occurrence of the phenomenon at some time or other, leaving the precise time undecided.
5. We have already proceeded far enough, not only to demonstrate the error of Hobbes, but to ascertain the real import of by far the most numerous cla.s.s of propositions. The object of belief in a proposition, when it a.s.serts anything more than the meaning of words, is generally, as in the cases which we have examined, either the co-existence or the sequence of two phenomena. At the very commencement of our inquiry, we found that every act of belief implied two Things: we have now ascertained what, in the most frequent case, these two things are, namely two Phenomena, in other words, two states of consciousness; and what it is which the proposition affirms (or denies) to subsist between them, namely either succession or co-existence. And this case includes innumerable instances which no one, previous to reflection, would think of referring to it. Take the following example: A generous person is worthy of honour. Who would expect to recognise here a case of co-existence between phenomena? But so it is. The attribute which causes a person to be termed generous, is ascribed to him on the ground of states of his mind, and particulars of his conduct: both are phenomena: the former are facts of internal consciousness; the latter, so far as distinct from the former, are physical facts, or perceptions of the senses. Worthy of honour admits of a similar a.n.a.lysis. Honour, as here used, means a state of approving and admiring emotion, followed on occasion by corresponding outward acts. "Worthy of honour" connotes all this, together with our approval of the act of showing honour. All these are phenomena; states of internal consciousness, accompanied or followed by physical facts. When we say, A generous person is worthy of honour, we affirm co-existence between the two complicated phenomena connoted by the two terms respectively. We affirm, that wherever and whenever the inward feelings and outward facts implied in the word generosity have place, then and there the existence and manifestation of an inward feeling, honour, would be followed in our minds by another inward feeling, approval.
After the a.n.a.lysis, in a former chapter, of the import of names, many examples are not needed to ill.u.s.trate the import of propositions. When there is any obscurity, or difficulty, it does not lie in the meaning of the proposition, but in the meaning of the names which compose it; in the extremely complicated connotation of many words; the immense mult.i.tude and prolonged series of facts which often const.i.tute the phenomenon connoted by a name. But where it is seen what the phenomenon is, there is seldom any difficulty in seeing that the a.s.sertion conveyed by the proposition is, the co-existence of one such phenomenon with another; or the succession of one such phenomenon to another: their _conjunction_, in short, so that where the one is found, we may calculate on finding both.
This, however, though the most common, is not the only meaning which propositions are ever intended to convey. In the first place, sequences and co-existences are not only a.s.serted respecting Phenomena; we make propositions also respecting those hidden causes of phenomena, which are named substances and attributes. A substance, however, being to us nothing but either that which causes, or that which is conscious of, phenomena; and the same being true, _mutatis mutandis_, of attributes; no a.s.sertion can be made, at least with a meaning, concerning these unknown and unknowable ent.i.ties, except in virtue of the Phenomena by which alone they manifest themselves to our faculties. When we say, Socrates was cotemporary with the Peloponnesian war, the foundation of this a.s.sertion, as of all a.s.sertions concerning substances, is an a.s.sertion concerning the phenomena which they exhibit,--namely, that the series of facts by which Socrates manifested himself to mankind, and the series of mental states which const.i.tuted his sentient existence, went on simultaneously with the series of facts known by the name of the Peloponnesian war. Still, the proposition does not a.s.sert that alone; it a.s.serts that the Thing in itself, the _noumenon_ Socrates, was existing, and doing or experiencing those various facts during the same time.
Co-existence and sequence, therefore, may be affirmed or denied not only between phenomena, but between noumena, or between a noumenon and phenomena. And both of noumena and of phenomena we may affirm simple existence. But what is a noumenon? An unknown cause. In affirming, therefore, the existence of a noumenon, we affirm causation. Here, therefore, are two additional kinds of fact, capable of being a.s.serted in a proposition. Besides the propositions which a.s.sert Sequence or Coexistence, there are some which a.s.sert simple Existence; and others a.s.sert Causation, which, subject to the explanations which will follow in the Third Book, must be considered provisionally as a distinct and peculiar kind of a.s.sertion.
6. To these four kinds of matter-of-fact or a.s.sertion, must be added a fifth, Resemblance. This was a species of attribute which we found it impossible to a.n.a.lyse; for which no _fundamentum_, distinct from the objects themselves, could be a.s.signed. Besides propositions which a.s.sert a sequence or co-existence between two phenomena, there are therefore also propositions which a.s.sert resemblance between them: as, This colour is like that colour;--The heat of to-day is _equal_ to the heat of yesterday. It is true that such an a.s.sertion might with some plausibility be brought within the description of an affirmation of sequence, by considering it as an a.s.sertion that the simultaneous contemplation of the two colours is _followed_ by a specific feeling termed the feeling of resemblance. But there would be nothing gained by enc.u.mbering ourselves, especially in this place, with a generalization which may be looked upon as strained. Logic does not undertake to a.n.a.lyse mental facts into their ultimate elements. Resemblance between two phenomena is more intelligible in itself than any explanation could make it, and under any cla.s.sification must remain specifically distinct from the ordinary cases of sequence and co-existence.
It is sometimes said, that all propositions whatever, of which the predicate is a general name, do, in point of fact, affirm or deny resemblance. All such propositions affirm that a thing belongs to a cla.s.s; but things being cla.s.sed together according to their resemblance, everything is of course cla.s.sed with the things which it is supposed to resemble most; and thence, it may be said, when we affirm that Gold is a metal, or that Socrates is a man, the affirmation intended is, that gold resembles other metals, and Socrates other men, more nearly than they resemble the objects contained in any other of the cla.s.ses co-ordinate with these.
There is some slight degree of foundation for this remark, but no more than a slight degree. The arrangement of things into cla.s.ses, such as the cla.s.s _metal_, or the cla.s.s _man_, is grounded indeed on a resemblance among the things which are placed in the same cla.s.s, but not on a mere general resemblance: the resemblance it is grounded on consists in the possession by all those things, of certain common peculiarities; and those peculiarities it is which the terms connote, and which the propositions consequently a.s.sert; not the resemblance: for though when I say, Gold is a metal, I say by implication that if there be any other metals it must resemble them, yet if there were no other metals I might still a.s.sert the proposition with the same meaning as at present, namely, that gold has the various properties implied in the word metal; just as it might be said, Christians are men, even if there were no men who were not Christians. Propositions, therefore, in which objects are referred to a cla.s.s because they possess the attributes const.i.tuting the cla.s.s, are so far from a.s.serting nothing but resemblance, that they do not, properly speaking, a.s.sert resemblance at all.
But we remarked some time ago (and the reasons of the remark will be more fully entered into in a subsequent Book[22]) that there is sometimes a convenience in extending the boundaries of a cla.s.s so as to include things which possess in a very inferior degree, if in any, some of the characteristic properties of the cla.s.s,--provided they resemble that cla.s.s more than any other, insomuch that the general propositions which are true of the cla.s.s, will be nearer to being true of those things than any other equally general propositions. For instance, there are substances called metals which have very few of the properties by which metals are commonly recognised; and almost every great family of plants or animals has a few anomalous genera or species on its borders, which are admitted into it by a sort of courtesy, and concerning which it has been matter of discussion to what family they properly belonged.
Now when the cla.s.s-name is predicated of any object of this description, we do, by so predicating it, affirm resemblance and nothing more. And in order to be scrupulously correct it ought to be said, that in every case in which we predicate a general name, we affirm, not absolutely that the object possesses the properties designated by the name, but that it _either_ possesses those properties, or if it does not, at any rate resembles the things which do so, more than it resembles any other things. In most cases, however, it is unnecessary to suppose any such alternative, the latter of the two grounds being very seldom that on which the a.s.sertion is made: and when it is, there is generally some slight difference in the form of the expression, as, This species (or genus) is _considered_, or _may be ranked_, as belonging to such and such a family: we should hardly say positively that it does belong to it, unless it possessed unequivocally the properties of which the cla.s.s-name is scientifically significant.
There is still another exceptional case, in which, though the predicate is the name of a cla.s.s, yet in predicating it we affirm nothing but resemblance, the cla.s.s being founded not on resemblance in any given particular, but on general una.n.a.lysable resemblance. The cla.s.ses in question are those into which our simple sensations, or other simple feelings, are divided. Sensations of white, for instance, are cla.s.sed together, not because we can take them to pieces, and say they are alike in this, and not alike in that, but because we feel them to be alike altogether, though in different degrees. When, therefore, I say, The colour I saw yesterday was a white colour, or, The sensation I feel is one of tightness, in both cases the attribute I affirm of the colour or of the other sensation is mere resemblance--simple _likeness_ to sensations which I have had before, and which have had those names bestowed upon them. The names of feelings, like other concrete general names, are connotative; but they connote a mere resemblance. When predicated of any individual feeling, the information they convey is that of its likeness to the other feelings which we have been accustomed to call by the same name. Thus much may suffice in ill.u.s.tration of the kind of propositions in which the matter-of-fact a.s.serted (or denied) is simple Resemblance.
Existence, Coexistence, Sequence, Causation, Resemblance: one or other of these is a.s.serted (or denied) in every proposition which is not merely verbal. This five-fold division is an exhaustive cla.s.sification of matters-of-fact; of all things that can be believed, or tendered for belief; of all questions that can be propounded, and all answers that can be returned to them. Instead of Coexistence and Sequence, we shall sometimes say, for greater particularity, Order in Place, and Order in Time: Order in Place being the specific mode of coexistence, not necessary to be more particularly a.n.a.lysed here; while the mere fact of coexistence, or simultaneousness, may be cla.s.sed, together with Sequence, under the head of Order in Time.
7. In the foregoing inquiry into the import of Propositions, we have thought it necessary to a.n.a.lyse directly those alone, in which the terms of the proposition (or the predicate at least) are concrete terms. But, in doing so, we have indirectly a.n.a.lysed those in which the terms are abstract. The distinction between an abstract term and its corresponding concrete, does not turn upon any difference in what they are appointed to signify; for the real signification of a concrete general name is, as we have so often said, its connotation; and what the concrete term connotes, forms the entire meaning of the abstract name. Since there is nothing in the import of an abstract name which is not in the import of the corresponding concrete, it is natural to suppose that neither can there be anything in the import of a proposition of which the terms are abstract, but what there is in some proposition which can be framed of concrete terms.
And this presumption a closer examination will confirm. An abstract name is the name of an attribute, or combination of attributes. The corresponding concrete is a name given to things, because of, and in order to express, their possessing that attribute, or that combination of attributes. When, therefore, we predicate of anything a concrete name, the attribute is what we in reality predicate of it. But it has now been shown that in all propositions of which the predicate is a concrete name, what is really predicated is one of five things: Existence, Coexistence, Causation, Sequence, or Resemblance. An attribute, therefore, is necessarily either an existence, a coexistence, a causation, a sequence, or a resemblance. When a proposition consists of a subject and predicate which are abstract terms, it consists of terms which must necessarily signify one or other of these things. When we predicate of anything an abstract name, we affirm of the thing that it is one or other of these five things; that it is a case of Existence, or of Coexistence, or of Causation, or of Sequence, or of Resemblance.
It is impossible to imagine any proposition expressed in abstract terms, which cannot be transformed into a precisely equivalent proposition in which the terms are concrete; namely, either the concrete names which connote the attributes themselves, or the names of the _fundamenta_ of those attributes; the facts or phenomena on which they are grounded. To ill.u.s.trate the latter case, let us take this proposition, of which the subject only is an abstract name, "Thoughtlessness is dangerous."
Thoughtlessness is an attribute, grounded on the facts which we call thoughtless actions; and the proposition is equivalent to this, Thoughtless actions are dangerous. In the next example the predicate as well as the subject are abstract names: "Whiteness is a colour;" or "The colour of snow is a whiteness." These attributes being grounded on sensations, the equivalent propositions in the concrete would be, The sensation of white is one of the sensations called those of colour,--The sensation of sight, caused by looking at snow, is one of the sensations called sensations of white. In these propositions, as we have before seen, the matter-of-fact a.s.serted is a Resemblance. In the following examples, the concrete terms are those which directly correspond to the abstract names; connoting the attribute which these denote. "Prudence is a virtue:" this may be rendered, "All prudent persons, _in so far as_ prudent, are virtuous:" "Courage is deserving of honour," thus, "All courageous persons are deserving of honour _in so far_ as they are courageous:" which is equivalent to this--"All courageous persons deserve an addition to the honour, or a diminution of the disgrace, which would attach to them on other grounds."
In order to throw still further light upon the import of propositions of which the terms are abstract, we will subject one of the examples given above to a minuter a.n.a.lysis. The proposition we shall select is the following:--"Prudence is a virtue." Let us subst.i.tute for the word virtue an equivalent but more definite expression, such as "a mental quality beneficial to society," or "a mental quality pleasing to G.o.d,"
or whatever else we adopt as the definition of virtue. What the proposition a.s.serts is a sequence, accompanied with causation; namely, that benefit to society, or that the approval of G.o.d, is consequent on, and caused by, prudence. Here is a sequence; but between what? We understand the consequent of the sequence, but we have yet to a.n.a.lyse the antecedent. Prudence is an attribute; and, in connexion with it, two things besides itself are to be considered; prudent persons, who are the _subjects_ of the attribute, and prudential conduct, which may be called the _foundation_ of it. Now is either of these the antecedent? and, first, is it meant, that the approval of G.o.d, or benefit to society, is attendant upon all prudent _persons_? No; except _in so far_ as they are prudent; for prudent persons who are scoundrels can seldom on the whole be beneficial to society, nor can they be acceptable to a good being. Is it upon prudential _conduct_, then, that divine approbation and benefit to mankind are supposed to be invariably consequent? Neither is this the a.s.sertion meant, when it is said that prudence is a virtue; except with the same reservation as before, and for the same reason, namely, that prudential conduct, although in _so far as_ it is prudential it is beneficial to society, may yet, by reason of some other of its qualities, be productive of an injury outweighing the benefit, and deserve a displeasure exceeding the approbation which would be due to the prudence. Neither the substance, therefore, (viz. the person,) nor the phenomenon, (the conduct,) is an antecedent on which the other term of the sequence is universally consequent. But the proposition, "Prudence is a virtue," is an universal proposition. What is it, then, upon which the proposition affirms the effects in question to be universally consequent? Upon that in the person, and in the conduct, which causes them to be called prudent, and which is equally in them when the action, though prudent, is wicked; namely, a correct foresight of consequences, a just estimation of their importance to the object in view, and repression of any unreflecting impulse at variance with the deliberate purpose. These, which are states of the person"s mind, are the real antecedent in the sequence, the real cause in the causation, a.s.serted by the proposition. But these are also the real ground, or foundation, of the attribute Prudence; since wherever these states of mind exist we may predicate prudence, even before we know whether any conduct has followed. And in this manner every a.s.sertion respecting an attribute, may be transformed into an a.s.sertion exactly equivalent respecting the fact or phenomenon which is the ground of the attribute.
And no case can be a.s.signed, where that which is predicated of the fact or phenomenon, does not belong to one or other of the five species formerly enumerated: it is either simple Existence, or it is some Sequence, Coexistence, Causation, or Resemblance.
And as these five are the only things which can be affirmed, so are they the only things which can be denied. "No horses are web-footed" denies that the attributes of a horse ever coexist with web-feet. It is scarcely necessary to apply the same a.n.a.lysis to Particular affirmations and negations. "Some birds are web-footed," affirms that, with the attributes connoted by _bird_, the phenomenon web-feet is sometimes co-existent: "Some birds are not web-footed," a.s.serts that there are other instances in which this coexistence does not have place. Any further explanation of a thing which, if the previous exposition has been a.s.sented to, is so obvious, may here be spared.
CHAPTER VI.
OF PROPOSITIONS MERELY VERBAL.
1. As a preparation for the inquiry which is the proper object of Logic, namely, in what manner propositions are to be proved, we have found it necessary to inquire what they contain which requires, or is susceptible of, proof; or (which is the same thing) what they a.s.sert. In the course of this preliminary investigation into the import of Propositions, we examined the opinion of the Conceptualists, that a proposition is the expression of a relation between two ideas; and the doctrine of the Nominalists, that it is the expression of an agreement or disagreement between the meanings of two names. We decided that, as general theories, both of these are erroneous; and that, though propositions may be made both respecting names and respecting ideas, neither the one nor the other are the subject-matter of Propositions considered generally. We then examined the different kinds of Propositions, and found that, with the exception of those which are merely verbal, they a.s.sert five different kinds of matters of fact, namely, Existence, Order in Place, Order in Time, Causation, and Resemblance; that in every proposition one of these five is either affirmed, or denied, of some fact or phenomenon, or of some object the unknown source of a fact or phenomenon.
In distinguishing, however, the different kinds of matters of fact a.s.serted in propositions, we reserved one cla.s.s of propositions, which do not relate to any matter of fact, in the proper sense of the term, at all, but to the meaning of names. Since names and their signification are entirely arbitrary, such propositions are not, strictly speaking, susceptible of truth or falsity, but only of conformity or disconformity to usage or convention; and all the proof they are capable of, is proof of usage; proof that the words have been employed by others in the acceptation in which the speaker or writer desires to use them. These propositions occupy, however, a conspicuous place in philosophy; and their nature and characteristics are of as much importance in logic, as those of any of the other cla.s.ses of propositions previously adverted to.
If all propositions respecting the signification of words were as simple and unimportant as those which served us for examples when examining Hobbes" theory of predication, viz. those of which the subject and predicate are proper names, and which a.s.sert only that those names have, or that they have not, been conventionally a.s.signed to the same individual, there would be little to attract to such propositions the attention of philosophers. But the cla.s.s of merely verbal propositions embraces not only much more than these, but much more than any propositions which at first sight present themselves as verbal; comprehending a kind of a.s.sertions which have been regarded not only as relating to things, but as having actually a more intimate relation with them than any other propositions whatever. The student in philosophy will perceive that I allude to the distinction on which so much stress was laid by the schoolmen, and which has been retained either under the same or under other names by most metaphysicians to the present day, viz. between what were called _essential_, and what were called _accidental_, propositions, and between essential and accidental properties or attributes.
2. Almost all metaphysicians prior to Locke, as well as many since his time, have made a great mystery of Essential Predication, and of predicates which are said to be of the _essence_ of the subject. The essence of a thing, they said, was that without which the thing could neither be, nor be conceived to be. Thus, rationality was of the essence of man, because without rationality, man could not be conceived to exist. The different attributes which made up the essence of the thing were called its essential properties; and a proposition in which any of these were predicated of it was called an Essential Proposition, and was considered to go deeper into the nature of the thing, and to convey more important information respecting it, than any other proposition could do. All properties, not of the essence of the thing, were called its accidents; were supposed to have nothing at all, or nothing comparatively, to do with its inmost nature; and the propositions in which any of these were predicated of it were called Accidental Propositions. A connexion may be traced between this distinction, which originated with the schoolmen, and the well-known dogmas of _substanti secund_ or general substances, and _substantial forms_, doctrines which under varieties of language pervaded alike the Aristotelian and the Platonic schools, and of which more of the spirit has come down to modern times than might be conjectured from the disuse of the phraseology. The false views of the nature of cla.s.sification and generalization which prevailed among the schoolmen, and of which these dogmas were the technical expression, afford the only explanation which can be given of their having misunderstood the real nature of those Essences which held so conspicuous a place in their philosophy. They said, truly, that _man_ cannot be conceived without rationality. But though _man_ cannot, a being may be conceived exactly like a man in all points except that one quality, and those others which are the conditions or consequences of it. All therefore which is really true in the a.s.sertion that man cannot be conceived without rationality, is only, that if he had not rationality, he would not be reputed a man. There is no impossibility in conceiving the _thing_, nor, for aught we know, in its existing: the impossibility is in the conventions of language, which will not allow the thing, even if it exist, to be called by the name which is reserved for rational beings. Rationality, in short, is involved in the meaning of the word man: is one of the attributes connoted by the name. The essence of man, simply means the whole of the attributes connoted by the word; and any one of those attributes taken singly, is an essential property of man.
But these reflections, so easy to us, would have been difficult to persons who thought, as most of the later Aristotelians did, that objects were made what they were called, that gold (for instance) was made gold, not by the possession of certain properties to which mankind have chosen to attach that name, but by partic.i.p.ation in the nature of a certain general substance, called gold in general, which substance, together with all the properties that belonged to it, _inhered_ in every individual piece of gold.[23] As they did not consider these universal substances to be attached to all general names, but only to some, they thought that an object borrowed only a part of its properties from an universal substance, and that the rest belonged to it individually: the former they called its essence, and the latter its accidents. The scholastic doctrine of essences long survived the theory on which it rested, that of the existence of real ent.i.ties corresponding to general terms; and it was reserved for Locke at the end of the seventeenth century, to convince philosophers that the supposed essences of cla.s.ses were merely the signification of their names; nor, among the signal services which his writings rendered to philosophy, was there one more needful or more valuable.
Now, as the most familiar of the general names by which an object is designated usually connotes not one only, but several attributes of the object, each of which attributes separately forms also the bond of union of some cla.s.s, and the meaning of some general name; we may predicate of a name which connotes a variety of attributes, another name which connotes only one of these attributes, or some smaller number of them than all. In such cases, the universal affirmative proposition will be true; since whatever possesses the whole of any set of attributes, must possess any part of that same set. A proposition of this sort, however, conveys no information to any one who previously understood the whole meaning of the terms. The propositions, Every man is a corporeal being, Every man is a living creature, Every man is rational, convey no knowledge to any one who was already aware of the entire meaning of the word _man_, for the meaning of the word includes all this: and that every _man_ has the attributes connoted by all these predicates, is already a.s.serted when he is called a man. Now, of this nature are all the propositions which have been called essential. They are, in fact, identical propositions.
It is true that a proposition which predicates any attribute, even though it be one implied in the name, is in most cases understood to involve a tacit a.s.sertion that there _exists_ a thing corresponding to the name, and possessing the attributes connoted by it; and this implied a.s.sertion may convey information, even to those who understood the meaning of the name. But all information of this sort, conveyed by all the essential propositions of which man can be made the subject, is included in the a.s.sertion, Men exist. And this a.s.sumption of real existence is, after all, the result of an imperfection of language. It arises from the ambiguity of the copula, which, in addition to its proper office of a mark to show that an a.s.sertion is made, is also, as formerly remarked, a concrete word connoting existence. The actual existence of the subject of the proposition is therefore only apparently, not really, implied in the predication, if an essential one: we may say, A ghost is a disembodied spirit, without believing in ghosts. But an accidental, or non-essential, affirmation, does imply the real existence of the subject, because in the case of a non-existent subject there is nothing for the proposition to a.s.sert. Such a proposition as, The ghost of a murdered person haunts the couch of the murderer, can only have a meaning if understood as implying a belief in ghosts; for since the signification of the word ghost implies nothing of the kind, the speaker either means nothing, or means to a.s.sert a thing which he wishes to be believed to have really taken place.
It will be hereafter seen that when any important consequences seem to follow, as in mathematics, from an essential proposition, or, in other words, from a proposition involved in the meaning of a name, what they really flow from is the tacit a.s.sumption of the real existence of the objects so named. Apart from this a.s.sumption of real existence, the cla.s.s of propositions in which the predicate is of the essence of the subject (that is, in which the predicate connotes the whole or part of what the subject connotes, but nothing besides) answer no purpose but that of unfolding the whole or some part of the meaning of the name, to those who did not previously know it. Accordingly, the most useful, and in strictness the only useful kind of essential propositions, are Definitions: which, to be complete, should unfold the whole of what is involved in the meaning of the word defined; that is, (when it is a connotative word,) the whole of what it connotes. In defining a name, however, it is not usual to specify its entire connotation, but so much only as is sufficient to mark out the objects usually denoted by it from all other known objects. And sometimes a merely accidental property, not involved in the meaning of the name, answers this purpose equally well.