SECTION III.

In what respects the study of the Aristotelian Logic may be useful to Disputants.— A general acquaintance with it justly regarded as an essential accomplishment to those who are liberally educated.-Doubts suggested by some late Writers, concerning Aristotle's claims to the invention of the Syllogistic Theory.

THE general result of the foregoing reflections is, That neither the means employed by the school logic for the assistance of the discursive faculty, nor the accomplishment of that end, were it really attained, are of much consequence in promoting the enlargement of the mind, or in guarding it against the influence of erroneous opinions. It is, however, a very different question, how far this art may be of use to such as are led by profession or inclination to try their strength in polemical warfare. My own opinion is, that, in the present age, it would not give to the disputant, in the judgment of men whose suffrage is of any value, the slightest advantage over his antagonist. In earlier times, indeed, the case must have been different. While the scholastic forms continued to be kept up, and while schoolmen were the sole judges of the contest, an expert logician could not fail to obtain an easy victory over an inferior proficient. Now, however, when the supreme tribunal to which all parties must appeal, is to be found, not within but without the walls of universities; and when the most learned dialectician must, for his own credit, avoid all allusion to the technical terms and technical forms of his art, can it be imagined that the mere possession of its rules furnishes him with invisible aid for annoying his adversary, or renders him invulnerable by some secret spell against the weapons of his assailant? Were this

*

An argument of this sort in favor of the Aristotelian logic, has, in fact, been lately alleged, in a treatise to which I have already had occasion to refer.

"Mr. Locke seems throughout to imagine that no use can be made of the doctrine of syllogisms, unless by men who deliver their reasonings in syllogistic form. That would, indeed, justly expose a man to the imputation of disgusting pedantry and tediousness. But, in fact, he who never uses an expression borrowed from the Aristotelic logic, may yet, unobserved, be availing himself, in the most important manner of its use, by bringing definitions, divisions, and arguments, to the test of its rules.

"In the mere application of it to the examining of an argument which we desire to refute,—the logician will be able to bring the argument in his own mind to syllo

really the case, one might have expected that the advocates who have undertaken its defence (considering how much their pride was interested in the controversy) would have given us some better specimens of its practical utility, in defending it against the unscientific attacks of Bacon and of Locke. It is, however, not a little remarkable, that, in every argument which they have attempted in its favor, they have not only been worsted by those very antagonists whom they accuse of ignorance, but fairly driven from the field of battle.*

gistic form. He will then have before his view every constituent part of the argument; some of which may have been wholly suppressed by his antagonist, and others disguised by ambiguity and declamation.-He knows every point in which it is subject to examination. He perceives immediately, by the rules of his art, whether the premises may be acknowledged, and the conclusion denied, for want of a vis consequentiæ.-If not, he knows where to look for a weakness.-He turns to each of the premises, and considers whether they are false, dubious, or equivocal and is thus prepared and directed to expose every weak point in the argument with clearness, precision, and method; and this to those who perhaps are wholly ignorant of the aids by which the speaker is thus enabled to carry conviction with his discourse."-Commentary on the Compendium of Logic, used in the University of Dublin. Dublin, 1805.

* In most of the defences of the school logic which I have seen, the chief weapon employed has been that kind of argument which, in scholastic phraseology, is called the Argumentum ad Hominem; an argument in the use of which much regard to consistency is seldom to be expected.-In one sentence, accordingly, Bacon and Locke are accused of having never read Aristotle; and, in the next, of having borrowed from Aristotle the most valuable part of their writings.

With respect to Locke, it has been triumphantly observed, that his acquaintance with Aristotle's logic must have been superficial, as he has, in one of his objections, manifestly confounded particular with singular propositions. (Commentary on the Dublin Compendium.) The criticism, I have no doubt, is just; but does it, therefore, follow, that a greater familiarity with the technical niceties of an art which he despised, would have rendered this profound thinker more capable of forming a just estimate of its scope and spirit, or of its efficacy in aiding the human understanding? Somewhat of the same description are the attempts which have been repeatedly made to discredit the strictures of Dr. Reid, by appealing to his own acknowledgment, that there might possibly be some parts of the Analytics and Topics which he had never read. The passage in which this acknowledgment is made, is so characteristical of the modesty and candor of the writer, that I am tempted to annex it to this note;more especially, as I am persuaded, that, with many readers, it will have the effect of confirming, rather than of shaking, their confidence in the general correctness and fidelity of his researches.

"In attempting to give some account of the Analytics and of the Topics of Aristotle, ingenuity requires me to confess, that though I have often purposed to read the whole with care, and to understand what is intelligible, yet my courage and patience always failed before I had done. Why should I throw away so much time and painful attention upon a thing of so little real use? If I had lived in those ages when the knowledge of Aristotle's Organon entitled a man to the highest rank in philosophy, ambition might have induced me to employ upon it some years of painful study; and less, I conceive, would not be sufficient. Such reflections as these always got the better of my resolution, when the first ardor began to cool. All I can say is, that I have read some parts of the books with care, some slightly, and some perhaps not at all. I have glanced over the whole often, and when any thing attracted my attention, have dipped into it till my appetite was satisfied. Of all reading, it is the most dry and the most painful, employing an infinite labor of demonstration, about things of the most abstract nature, delivered in a laconic style, and often, I think,

It has, indeed, been asserted by an ingenious and learned writer, that "he has never met with a person unacquainted with logic, who could state and maintain his argument with facility, clearness, and precision;that he has seen a man of the acutest mind puzzled by the argument of his antagonist; sensible, perhaps, that it was inconclusive, but wholly unable to expose the fallacy which rendered it so: while a logician, of perhaps very inferior talents, would be able at once to discern and to mark it."*

I do not deny that there may be some foundation for this statement. The part of Aristotle's Organon which seems, in the design, to be the most practically useful (although it is certainly very imperfect in the execution) is the book of Sophisms; a book which still supplies a very convenient phraseology for marking concisely some of the principal fallacies which are apt to impose on the understanding in the heat of a viva voce dispute.† Whether it affords any aid in detecting or discerning these fallacies, may perhaps be doubted. But it is certainly an acquisition, and an acquisition of no contemptible value, to have always at hand a set of technical terms, by which we can point out to our hearers, without circumlocution or discussion, the vulnerable parts of our antagonist's reasoning. That nothing useful is to be learned from Aristotle's logic I am far from thinking; but I believe that all which is useful in it might be reduced into a very narrow compass; and I am decidedly of opinion, that wherever it becomes a serious and favorite object of study, it is infinitely more likely to do harm than good. Indeed, I cannot help considering it

with affected obscurity; and all to prove general propositions, which, when applied to particular instances, appear self-evident." Chap. III. sect. 1.

* Mr. Walker, author of the Commentary on the Dublin Compendium of Logic. Such phrases, for example, as, 1. Fallacia accidentis. 2. A dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. 3. Ab ignorantia elenchi. 4. A non causâ pro causâ. 5. Fallacia consequentis. 6. Petitio principii. 7. Fallacia plurium interrogationum, &c.

I have mentioned those fallacies alone which are called by logicians Fallacia extra dictionem; for as to those which are called Fallacia in dictione (such as the Fallacia æquivocationis, Fallacia amphiboliæ, Fallacia accentûs vel Pronunciationis, Fallacia a figurâ dictionis, &c.) they are too contemptible to be deserving of any notice.-For some remarks on this last class of fallacies, See Note (M.)

as strongly symptomatic of some unsoundness in a man's judgment, when I find him disposed (after all that has been said by Bacon and Locke) to magnify its importance either as an inventive or as an argumentative Organ. Nor does this opinion rest upon theory alone. It is confirmed by all that I have observed, (if, after the example of the author last quoted, I may presume to mention the results of my own observations,) with respect to the intellectual characters of the most expert dialecticians whom I have happened to know. Among these, I can with great truth say, that although I recollect several possessed of much learning, subtlety, and ingenuity, I can name none who have extended by their discoveries the boundaries of science; or on whose good sense I should conceive that much reliance was to be placed in the conduct of important affairs.

Some very high authorities, I must, at the same time, confess, may be quoted on the opposite side of the question; among others, that of Leibnitz, unquestionably one of the first names in modern philosophy. But, on this point, the mind of Leibnitz was not altogether unwarped; for he appears to have early contracted a partiality, not only for scholastic learning, but for the projects of some of the schoolmen, to reduce, by means of technical aids, the exercise of the discursive faculty to a sort of mechanical operation;-a partiality which could not fail to be cherished by that strong bias towards synthetical reasoning from abstract maxims, which characterizes all his philosophical speculations. It must be remembered too, that he lived at a period, when logical address was still regarded in Germany as an indispensable accomplishment to all whose taste led them to the cultivation of letters or of science. Nor was this an accomplishment of easy acquisition; requiring, as it must have done, for its attainment, a long course of laborious study, and, for its successful display, a more than ordinary share of acuteness, promptitude, and invention. To all which it may be added, that while it remained in vogue, it must have been peculiarly flattering to the vanity and self-love of the possessor; securing to him, in every contest with the comparatively unskilful, an in

fallible triumph. These considerations (combined with that attachment to the study of jurisprudence which he retained through life) may, I think, go far to account for the disposition which Leibnitz sometimes shows to magnify a little too much the value of this art. It is, besides, extremely worthy of remark, with respect to this eminent man, within what narrow limits he circumscribes the province of the school logic, notwithstanding the favorable terms in which he occasionally speaks of it. The following passage in one of his letters is particularly deserving of attention, as it confines the utility of syllogism to those controversies alone which are carried on in writing, and contains an explicit acknowledgment, that, in extemporaneous discussions, the use of it is equally nugatory and impracticable.

"I have myself experienced the great utility of the forms of logic in bringing controversies to an end; and wonder how it has happened, that they should have been so often applied to disputes where no issue was to be expected, while their real use has been altogether overlooked. In an argument which is carried on viva voce, it is scarcely possible that the forms should continue to be rigorously observed; not only on account of the tediousness of the process, but chiefly from the difficulty of retaining distinctly in the memory all the different links of a long chain. Accordingly, it commonly happens, that after one prosyllogism, the disputants betake themselves to a freer mode of conference. But if, in a controversy carried on in writing, the legitimate forms were strictly observed, it would neither be difficult nor disagreeable, by a mutual exchange of syllogisms and answers, to keep up the contest,* till either the point to be proved was completely established, or the disputant had nothing farther to allege in support of it. For the introduction, however, of this into practice, many rules remain to be prescribed; the greater part of which are to be collected from the practice of lawyers." †

The words in the original are-" non ingratum nec difficile foret, mittendo remittendoque syllogisinos et responsiones tamdiu reciprocare serram, donec vel confectum sit quod probandum erat, vel nihil ultra habeat quod afferat argumentator." Leibnitz. Op. Tom. VI. p. 72. Edit. Dutens.