-- 595. Proof of Rule 8.--_That two particular premisses prove nothing_.
We know by Rule 5 that both premisses cannot be negative. Hence they must be either both affirmative, II, or one affirmative and one negative, IO or OI.
Now II premisses do not distribute any term at all, and therefore the middle term cannot be distributed, which would violate Rule 3.
Again in IO or OI premisses there is only one term distributed, namely, the predicate of the O proposition. But Rule 3 requires that this one term should be the middle term. Therefore the major term must be undistributed in the major premiss. But since one of the premisses is negative, the conclusion must be negative, by Rule 6. And every negative proposition distributes its predicate. Therefore the major term must be distributed where it occurs as predicate of the conclusion. But it was not distributed in the major premiss. Therefore in drawing any conclusion we violate Rule 4 by an illicit process of the major term.
-- 596. Proof of Rule 9.--_That_, _if_ one _premiss be particular_, _the conclusion must be particular_.
Two negative premisses being excluded by Rule 5, and two particular by Rule 8, the only pairs of premisses we can have are--
AI, AO, EI.
Of course the particular premiss may precede the universal, but the order of the premisses will not affect the reasoning.
AI premisses between them distribute one term only. This must be the middle term by Rule 3. Therefore the conclusion must be particular, as its subject cannot be distributed,
AO and EI premisses each distribute two terms, one of which must be the middle term by Rule 3: so that there is only one term left which may be distributed in the conclusion. But the conclusion must be negative by Rule 4. Therefore its predicate must be distributed.
Hence its subject cannot be so. Therefore the conclusion must be particular.
-- 597. Rules 6 and 9 are often lumped together in a single expression--"The conclusion must follow the weaker part," negative being considered weaker than affirmative, and particular than universal.
-- 598. The most important rules of syllogism are summed up in the following mnemonic lines, which appear to have been perfected, though not invented, by a mediaeval logician known as Petrus Hispa.n.u.s, who was afterwards raised to the Papal Chair under the t.i.tle of Pope John XXI, and who died in 1277--
Distribuas medium, nec quartus terminus adsit; Utraque nec praemissa negans, nec particularis; Sectetur partem conclusio deteriorem, Et non distribuat, nisi c.u.m praemissa, negetve.
CHAPTER XII.
_Of the Determination of the Legitimate Moods of Syllogism._
-- 599. It will be remembered that there were found to be 64 possible moods, each of which might occur in any of the four figures, giving us altogether 256 possible varieties of syllogism. The task now before us is to determine how many of these combinations of mood and figure are legitimate.
-- 600. By the application of the preceding rules we are enabled to reduce the 64 possible moods to 11 valid ones. This may be done by a longer or a shorter method. The longer method, which is perhaps easier of comprehension, is to write down the 64 possible moods, and then strike out such as violate any of the rules of syllogism.
AAA -AEA- -AIA- -AOA- -AAE- AEE -AIE- -AOE- AAI -AEI- AII -AOI- -AAO- AEO -AIO- AOO
-EAA- -EEA- -EIA- -EOA- EAE -EEE- -EIE- -EOE- -EAI- -EEI- -EII- -EOI- EAO -EEO- EIO -EOO-
[Ill.u.s.tration]
-- 601. The batches which are crossed are those in which the premisses can yield no conclusion at all, owing to their violating Rule 6 or 9; in the rest the premises are legitimate, but a wrong conclusion is drawn from each of them as are translineated.
-- 602. IEO stands alone, as violating Rule 4. This may require a little explanation.
Since the conclusion is negative, the major term, which is its predicate, must be distributed. But the major premiss, being 1, does not distribute either subject or predicate. Hence IEO must always involve an illicit process of the major.
-- 603. The II moods which have been left valid, after being tested by the syllogistic rules, are as follows--
AAA. AAI. AEE. AEO. AII. AOO.
EAE. EAO. EIO.
IAI.
OAO.
-- 604. We will now arrive at the same result by a shorter and more scientific method. This method consists in first determining what pairs of premisses are valid in accordance with Rules 6 and g, and then examining what conclusions may be legitimately inferred from them in accordance with the other rules of syllogism.
-- 605. The major premiss may be either A, E, I or O. If it is A, the minor also may be either A, E, I or O. If it is E, the minor can only be A or I. If it is I, the minor can only be A or E. If it is O, the minor can only be A. Hence there result 9 valid pairs of premisses.
AA. AE. AI. AO.
EA. EI.
IA. IE.
OA.
Three of these pairs, namely AA, AE, EA, yield two conclusions apiece, one universal and one particular, which do not violate any of the rules of syllogism; one of them, IE, yields no conclusion at all; the remaining five have their conclusion limited to a single proposition, on the principle that the conclusion must follow the weaker part.
Hence we arrive at the same result as before, of II legitimate moods--
AAA. AAI. AEE. AEO. EAE. EAO.
AII. AOO. EIO. IAI. OAO.
CHAPTER XIII.
_Of the Special Rules of the Four Figures_.
-- 606. Our next task must be to determine how far the 11 moods which we arrived at in the last chapter are valid in the four figures. But before this can be done, we must lay down the
_Special Rules of the Four Figures_.
FIGURE 1.
Rule 1, The minor premiss must be affirmative.
Rule 2. The major premiss must be universal.
FIGURE II.
Rule 1. One or other premiss must be negative.