SECTION II-GENERAL REFLECTIONS ON THE AIM OF THE ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC, AND ON THE INTELLECTUAL HABITS WHICH THE STUDY OF IT HAS A TENDENCY TO FORM.-THAT THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE POWER OF REASONING OUGHT TO BE REGARDED AS ONLY A SECONDARY OBJECT IN THE CULTURE OF THE UNDERSTANDING.

The remarks which were long ago made by Lord Bacon on the inutility of the syllogism as an organ of scientific discovery, together with the acute strictures in Mr. Locke's Essay on this form of reasoning, are so decisive in point of argument, and, at the same time, so familiarly known to all who turn their attention to philosophical inquiries, as to render it perfectly unnecessary for me, on the present occasion, to add anything in support of them. I shall, therefore, in the sequel, confine myself to a few very general and miscellaneous reflections on one or two points overlooked by these eminent writers; but to which it is of essential importance to attend, in order to estimate justly the value of the Aristotelian logic, considered as a branch of education.1

It is an observation which has been often repeated since Bacon's time, and which, it is astonishing, was so long in forcing itself on the notice of philosophers, That, in all our reasonings about the established order of the universe, experience is our sole guide, and knowledge is to be acquired only by ascending from particulars to generals; whereas the syllogism leads us invariably from universals to particulars, the truth of which, instead of being a consequence of the universal proposition, is implied and presupposed in the very terms of its enunciation. The syllogistic art, therefore, it has been justly concluded, can be of no use in extending our knowledge of nature.2

1 To some of my readers it may not be superfluous to recommend, as a valuable supplement to the discussions of Locke and Bacon concerning the syllogistic art, what has been since written on the same subject, in farther prosecu

tion of their views, by Dr. Reid in his Analysis [Account] of Aristotle's Logic, and by Dr. Campbell in his Philosophy of Rhetoric.

2 On this point it would be a mere waste of time to enlarge, as it has been

To this observation it may be added, That, if there are any parts of science in which the syllogism can be advantageously applied, it must be those where our judgments are formed in consequence of an application to particular cases of certain maxims which we are not at liberty to dispute. An example of this occurs in the practice of Law. Here, the particular conclusion must be regulated by the general principle, whether right or wrong. The case was similar in every branch of philosophy, as long as the authority of great names prevailed, and the old scholastic maxims were allowed, without examination, to pass as incontrovertible truths. Since the importance of experiment and observation was fully understood, the syllogistic art has gradually fallen into contempt.

1

A remark somewhat similar occurs in the preface to the Novum Organon. "They who attributed so much to logic," says Lord Bacon, "perceived very well and truly, that it was

of late explicitly admitted by some of the ablest advocates for the Organon of Aristotle. "When Mr. Locke," I quote the words of a very judicious and acute logician-" when Mr. Locke says, 'I am apt to think, that he who should employ all the force of his reason only in brandishing of syllogisms, will discover very little of that mass of knowledge which lies yet concealed in the secret recesses of nature;'—he expresses himself with needless caution. Such a man will certainly not discover any of it. And if any imagined that the mere brandishing of syllogisms could increase their knowledge, (as some of the schoolmen seemed to think,) they were indeed very absurd." (Commentary on the Compendium of Logic used in the University of Dublin, by the Rev. John Walker. Dublin, 1805.)

To the same effect, it is remarked by a later writer, with respect to Lord Bacon's assertion, "that discoveries in Natural Philosophy are not likely to be promoted by the engine of syllogism;" -"that this is a proposition which no

one of the present day disputes; and which, when alleged by our adversaries as their chief objection to the study of logic, only proves that they are ignorant of the subject about which they are speaking, and of the manner in which it is now taught." (See an Anonymous Pamphlet printed at Oxford in 1810, p. 26, [by Coplestone ?]) Dr. Gillies has expressed himself in terms extremely similar upon various occasions. (See, in particular, vol. i. pp. 63, 64, 2d edit.)

This very important concession reduces the question about the utility of the Aristotelian logic within a very narrow compass.

1 "Ce sera un sujet éternel d'étonnement pour les personnes qui savent bien ce que c'est que philosophie, que de voir que l'autorité d'Aristote a été tellement respectée dans les écoles pendant quelques siècles, que lors qu'un disputant citoit un passage de ce philosophe, celui qui soutenoit la these n'osoit point dire transeat; il falloit qu'il niât le passage, ou qu'il l'expliquât à sa manière.” -Dict. de Bayle, Art. Aristote.

not safe to trust the understanding to itself, without the guard of any rules. But the remedy reached not the evil, but became a part of it: For the logic which took place, though it might do well enough in civil affairs, and the arts which consisted in talk and opinion, yet comes very far short of subtlety in the real performances of nature; and catching at what it cannot reach, has served to confirm and establish errors, rather than open a way to truth."1

It is not, however, merely as a useless or inefficient organ for the discovery of truth, that this art is exceptionable. The importance of the very object at which it professedly aims is not a little doubtful. To exercise with correctness the powers of deduction and of argumentation; or, in other words, to make a legitimate inference from the premises before us, would seem to be an intellectual process which requires but little assistance from rule. The strongest evidence of this is the faculty with which men of the most moderate capacity learn, in the course of a few months, to comprehend the longest mathematical demonstrations; a facility which, when contrasted with the difficulty of enlightening their minds on questions of morals or of politics, affords a sufficient proof, that it is not from any inability to conduct a mere logical process that our speculative errors arise. The fact is, that, in most of the sciences, our rea

1 As the above translation is by Mr. Locke, who has introduced it in the way of apology for the freedom of his own strictures on the school logic, the opinion which it expresses may be considered as also sanctioned by the authority of his name. (See the Introduction to his Treatise on the Conduct of the Understanding.) I cannot forbear remarking on this occasion, that when Lord Bacon speaks of the school logic as "answering well enough in civil affairs, and the arts which consist in talk and opinion," his words can only apply to dialectical syllogisms, and cannot possibly be extended to those which Aristotle calls demonstrative. Whatever

praise, therefore, it may be supposed to imply, must be confined to the books of Topics. The same observation will be found to hold with respect to the greater part of what has been alleged in defence of the syllogistic art by Dr. Gillies, and by the other authors referred to in the beginning of this section. One of the ablest of these seems to assent to an assertion of Bacon, "That logic does not help towards the invention of arts and sciences, but only of arguments." If it only helps towards the invention of arguments, for what purpose has Aristotle treated so fully of Demonstration and of Science in the two books of the Last Analytics?

sonings consist of a very few steps; and yet how liable are the most cautious, and the most sagacious, to form erroneous conclusions!

To enumerate and examine the causes of these false judgments is foreign to my purpose in this section. The following (which I mention only by way of specimen) seem to be among the most powerful:-1. The imperfections of language, both as an instrument of thought, and as a medium of philosophical communication. 2. The difficulty, in many of our most important inquiries, of ascertaining the facts on which our reasonings are to proceed. 3. The partial and narrow views which, from want of information, or from some defect in our intellectual comprehension, we are apt to take of subjects which are peculiarly complicated in their details, or which are connected by numerous relations with other questions equally problematical. 4. And lastly, (what is of all, perhaps, the most copious source of speculative error,) the prejudices which authority and fashion, fortified by early impressions and associations, create to warp our opinions. To illustrate these and other circumstances by which the judgment is apt to be misled in the search of truth, and to point out the most effectual means of guarding against them, would form a very important article in a philosophical system of logic; but it is not on such subjects that we are to expect information from the logic of Aristotle.1

The fundamental idea on which this philosopher evidently proceeded, and in which he has been too implicitly followed by many even of those who have rejected his syllogistic theory, takes for granted, that the discovery of truth chiefly depends on the reasoning faculty, and that it is the comparative strength of this faculty which constitutes the intellectual superiority of one man above another. The similarity between the words reason and reasoning, of which I formerly took notice, and the confusion which it has occasioned in their appropriate mean

In the Logic of Port-Royal, there is a chapter, entitled Des sophismes d'amour propre, d'interêt, et de passion, which is well worthy of a careful perusal.

Some useful hints may be also collected from Gravesande's Introductio ad Philosophiam. See book ii. part ii. (De Causis Errorum.)

ings, has contributed powerfully to encourage and to perpetuate this unfortunate mistake. If I do not greatly deceive myself, it will be found, on an accurate examination of the subject, that, of the different elements which enter into the composition of reason, in the most enlarged acceptation of that word, the power of carrying on long processes of reasoning or deduction is, in point of importance, one of the least.1

The slightest reflection, indeed, may convince us how very little connexion the mere reasoning faculty has with the general improvement of mankind. The wonders which it has achieved have been confined, in a great measure, to the mathematical sciences-the only branches of human knowledge which furnish occasion for long concatenated processes of thought; and even there, method, together with a dexterous use of the helps to our intellectual faculties which art has discovered, will avail more than the strongest conceivable capacity, exercised solely and exclusively in habits of synthetic deduction. The tendency of these helps, it may be worth while to add, is so far from being always favourable to the power of reasoning,

It was before observed, (pp. 107, 108,) "That the whole theory of syllogism proceeds on the supposition, that the same word is always to be employed in the same sense; and that, consequently, it takes for granted, in every rule which it furnishes for the guidance of our reasoning powers, that the nicest, and by far the most difficult part of the logical process, has been previously brought to a successful termination."

In this remark, (which, obvious as it may seem, has been very generally overlooked,) I have found, since the foregoing sheets were printed, that I have been anticipated by M. Turgot. "Tout l'artifice de ce calcul ingénieux, dont Aristote nous a donné les règles, tout l'art du syllogisme est fondé sur l'usage des mots dans le même sens; l'emploi d'un même mot dans deux sens différens fait de tout raisonnement un sophisme; et ce genre de sophisme,

peut-être le plus commun de tous, est une des sources les plus ordinaires de nos erreurs."-Euvres de M. Turgot, tom. iii. p. 66.

Lord Bacon had manifestly the same conclusion in view, in the following aphorism: "Syllogism consists of propositions, propositions of words, and words are the signs of notions; therefore, if our notions, the basis of all, are confined, and over hastily taken from things, nothing that is built on them can be firm; whence our only hope rests upon genuine induction."-Nov. Org. part i. sect. 1, aph. 14. (Shaw's Translation.)