Chapter IV: Section II: 22 (2)

16. Of all syllogistic figures, the first is the best adapted to science, since the arithmetician, geometrician, and lastly all those who demonstrate any effect from its proper cause, fabricate their reasonings according to this figure. For the middle figure is seldom used, because only adapted to a few occasions: and since the knowledge of the _why_ is of all others the most important, which is alone obtained by this figure: hence, in the pursuit of science, it is always preferred before the rest. Besides, it is equally accommodated to the knowledge of final causes; to which it alone tends: for it composes definitions from words universal, and affirmative. In the second figure, a complex negative is conceived; and in the last, a particular one. Add to this, that mediate propositions are no other ways reducible to immediate ones than by this figure, in which the mediate proposition tends, by a continued series, to that which is immediate. But the second does not conclude affirmatively, nor the last universally; from whence it appears, that a mediate proposition can never become immediate by these figures: not that all affirmative propositions are immediate ones, since some negatives are of this kind; for all propositions are equally immediate, which cannot be confirmed by syllogism; and such are those negatives, of whose terms it is impossible any genus can be affirmed. Thus the proposition, _no substance is quality_, is an immediate negative of this kind, whose terms are two of the most universal genera of things.

Again, as we have frequently affirmed that he who demonstrates, always assumes such things as are essentially predicated; but that he who argues dialectically or topically, not always, but generally assumes such as are accidentally predicated, and which appear more probable and known than such as are essentially inherent; it is proper we should define what is meant by accidental predication; or something predicated by means of another. Indeed, the term has a diffuse signification: for, first, a body is said to be white by something else, because by its superficies; and in this manner vines are white, because their branches are white. Thus, if accident be predicated of accident, it is by means of another; as when we say the musician is fair; for the being a musician is an accident of man, and the being fair of the musician: and man is the subject of each. The predicate of substance is equally accidental, when not included in the number of things substantially inherent; as when we affirm of any particular man that he is red, or black. But the predication is especially accidental, as often as, by perverting the order of nature, substance is predicated of accident; as when we say something white is an animal: for this assertion differs from that other, _animal is white_. In the latter, the subject _animal_ is neither inherent in another, nor subsists by another, but has an essential existence. In the former, what is assumed as a subject derives its existence from that of which it is the accident. It is only dialectically, therefore, that we can argue from predicates as probable and known without any distinction: but in demonstration, all that are preposterous and accidental must be carefully avoided, excepting such accidents as being essentially in a subject, admit of an essential predication; and some of these we have enumerated before.

17. We are now entering on a disquisition neither ignoble nor useless: it is this, whether the number of things predicated essentially of a subject is finite, or whether things in a continued series run on to infinity. For instance, let us suppose some ultimate subject, which is not the predicate of any thing besides; and let _c_ represent such a subject, of which _b_ is the first and immediate predicate; and in the same manner _d_ of _b_, and _e_ of _d_: the query is, Whether or not this extraction must necessarily stop, or will admit of an immense progression, so that _f_ may be predicated of _e_, and _g_ of _f_, and so on infinitely; the power of the predicates, which supplies the common identity, still remaining inexhaustible and undiminished? The second query is this, Supposing some general subject, which we call _a_, of such a nature as to be no longer the subject of any farther predication, but to be itself the supreme and primary predicate; and supposing that it is immediately inherent in _f_, and _f_ in _e_, and _e_ in _g_, whether or not the process must stop, or extend to infinity, and no subject be found which is not directly predicable of another? There is a remarkable difference in the two considerations; for, in the former we enquire whether any ultimate subject can supply an infinite ascent of predicates; in the latter, whether any first predicate can exist in an infinite descending series of subjects. The third question is, supposing two extremes constituted from a first predicate and last subject, whether it is possible an infinite number of mediums can intervene? And this is no other than to enquire whether demonstrations admit of an infinite progression, so that whatever is assumed in proof of another, must be proved itself? Or whether it is not more agreeable to truth, that there should be some immediate propositions and ultimate terms, whose discovery may give respite to enquiry, and stay the elaborate process of demonstration? The same question occurs in negatives. But that some of these are immediate, the instance lately alledged sufficiently evinces. The solution of this enquiry is not so difficult in subjects which mutually reciprocate; for in these, when the ultimate subject is given, no one can doubt the existence of their primary predicate; nor when the primary predicate is admitted, can there be any doubt of the existence of some ultimate subject. For, in things which mutually reciprocate, whatever is enquired of the one, is immediately questioned of the other; and wherever there is a last subject, there must be a first predicate; for by the conversion of the ultimate subject you effect the primary predicate.

Previous to the discussion of the first question, it is necessary to know that infinite intermediates cannot intervene between two finite terms in an ascending and descending series of predications. I call the series ascending which rises to universals; but descending, which, by a contrary process, stops at particulars. Thus, if any one admits that _a_ is some first predicate, and _g_ some ultimate subject, and should contend, that between these terms there may be infinite mediums, he contradicts himself; since he who begins from _a_ in a descending progression, will never, by this means, arrive at _g_; and he who departs from _g_ in an ascending series, can never finally rise to _a_. So that the extremes can be no longer finite, as the hypothesis admitted. Indeed, the absurdity of such a supposition is the same as to contend that between one and ten, an infinity of numbers may exist; which is evidently impossible, because the discrete nature of numbers excludes their actual existence in infinitum, between any finite limits; since they can only become infinite from their actual existence and precedence, and not from any dormant power or capacity they possess: for between any two given numbers there is nothing similar to number in capacity, which can ever become number in energy; as in quantity continuous between any two points there are always parts in capacity, which, whenever a proper agent is at hand, become immediately actual. In like manner, he who admits the terms finite, but believes that the mediums are infinite, asserts what is impossible, since these logical predications are of the same discrete nature with numbers themselves. Thus all the predicates which can exist between Socrates and substance, must exist actually, or not at all; for surely between these two terms, or periods, no predicate in capacity can ever be supposed to subsist. If it be urged, that the capacity of receiving these predicates exists between Socrates and substance, still we reply, it is not that kind of capacity in which these predicates can retain the most shadowy existence; out of which they can ever be called forth into energy, as from some latent retreat; or into which they can finally retire, when energy is no more. And hence we conclude it impossible that infinite mediums can exist between any finite terms.

18. It now remains that we prove, first, by probable arguments, and then by such as are demonstrative, that the extremes in any series of predications are finite; and that an infinite progression is impossible, not only in substantial predicates, but in such as are accidental. For every thing predicated of another is either essentially or accidentally inherent; and is predicated in a natural or preposterous order. It is predicated according to nature, when accident is declared of substance; contrary to nature, when substance of accident. That essential predicates are finite, appears from hence, because a contrary hypothesis excludes the existence of definition, by admitting that all things are contained in some superior genus, and acknowledge some farther definition; since it is impossible that the definitions of genus can ever be circumscribed, while there is a continual supply of other genera, which can never be known without definition; for thus we shall never obtain either a beginning or an end. But to define all things is not possible, because infinity can never be absolved by the most unwearied progression. Predictions then, of this kind, are always circumscribed by a certain number of terms, which prevent their infinite process, and cause all the strength of demonstration, and all the certainty of human knowledge. The same may be proved in accidents; for such as are predicated of substance, are either predicated as qualities or quantities, as relatives, or as actions and passions; as expressive of some habit, or significant of some place; or as connected with some time. Thus we say the wood is white, the triangle is scalene; whiteness being accidental to the wood, and scalenity to the triangle. It is therefore certain, that every accident is predicated of substance; and it is no less certain that the predicates of substance are finite, since they are all included in the ten universal genera of things.

19. We have hitherto defended the impossibility of an infinite progression of logical predicates and subjects, in a demonstrative process, by such arguments as are dialectical and common: it now remains that we adopt such as are peculiar and certain. Demonstrations, then, are derived from affections essentially inherent in a subject; and these are either such as take place in definitions of a subject, as multitude and quantity, are essentially predicated of number; or, secondly, accidents which are defined from their subjects, as imparity by number. But the predication cannot, in either case, be extended to infinity. For it is not necessary that in the same manner that imparity is predicated of number, something else, suppose _c_, should be predicated of imparity; and so imparity be contained in its definition, similar to number in the definition of imparity. For in predications of this kind, the terms are always assumed more contracted than their subject; and at length, by a continued procession, must terminate in an indivisible. Thus, as imparity is more contracted than number, _c_ must be more contracted than imparity. Hence, these predications either finally stop, for the reasons we have assigned; or because whatever is predicated of imparity, is necessarily predicated of number; so that one thing as number would be actually contained in the definition of an infinity of things; and so actual infinity must ensue, which is absurd. Lastly, whatever is said to reside in the terms, must be allowed to reside in the subject; so number must be applied in the definition of every affection; and an infinite number of properties will be essentially inherent in number; and number will inherit infinite definitions. But affections essentially resident in a subject cannot be infinite, because it is necessary they should exist in energy. Thus, imparity cannot exist potentially in number; nor reason in man; nor rotundity in a circle, because wherever these subjects have an actual being, it is necessary these essential attributes should be actually inherent. Again, in the definitions of a subject, an infinite process is impossible, because from such an hypothesis nothing could ever be defined; and thus it appears that neither can demonstrations be infinitely extended, nor every thing admit of demonstration, an opinion we have already noticed in the beginning of this section: for if neither universally, nor in every proposition a middle term can be assumed, but as soon as we arrive at immediate propositions, the labour of investigation is finished, the possibility of demonstrating every thing can no longer be defended; since it is proved above, that by limiting the extremes, an infinite number of mediums is necessarily excluded.

And thus, by taking away infinity from the reasoning art, we have given a support to science, which the most vigorous efforts of subtle sophistry can never finally subvert. We have set bounds to that restless spirit of enquiry which wanders uncontrouled in the mind unenlightened by science, by every where circumscribing its progress within the limits of that which is most particular, and most universal, a first predicate, and an ultimate subject: and finally, by asserting that all the evidence of human knowledge results from the lustre of primary and immediate principles, we have held up a steady and permanent light, ever sufficient to direct our steps through the dark mazes of ignorance and error, into the bright paths of certainty and truth.

20. Let us next consider whether universal demonstration is preferable to particular, or not. And first, in favour of particulars we may say that their evidence is more exquisite and certain than that of universals. Thus, the knowledge, from inspection, that Callias is a rational animal, is superior to that acquired by a reasoning process which infers his rationality, because every man is a rational animal. By particular demonstration a thing is known as it is, by universal only in common. Besides, particulars possess some solidity, universals none: and the demonstration of things which have a real existence, is more excellent than that of things which have none. And there are no errors more frequent than those about universals; demonstration considering them as things entirely abstracted from singulars. On the contrary, particulars are usurped by the sight, grasped, as it were, by the hand, and the general subject of every sense; so that concerning these, demonstration affirms nothing false or inconstant. But these reasons, however plausible, are easily confused. And, first, the term essential is more closely connected with universals than particulars. Thus the possession of three angles equal to two right, is an affection more essential to the triangle itself, than to one equilateral or scalene. Add too, that in the demonstration of universals we always infer some property of a subject from its simple existence, or because it is such a subject. Again, many affections are contained in singulars assumed from no particular nature, but from that which is universal; as rationality in Socrates, which is not inferred from his existence as Socrates, but from his existence as man. Farther, that demonstration is the more excellent which is derived from the better cause: but an universal cause is more extended and excellent than a particular one; since the arduous investigation of the _why_ in any subject is stopt by the arrival at universals. Thus, if we desire to know why the exterior angles of a triangle are equal to four right ones, and it is answered, because the triangle is isosceles; we again ask, But why because isosceles? And if it be replied, because it is a triangle, we may again enquire, But why because a triangle? To which we finally answer, because a triangle is a right-lined figure; and here our enquiry rests at that universal idea which embraces every preceding particular one, and is contained in no other more general and comprehensive than itself. Add too, that the demonstration of particulars is almost the demonstration of infinites; of universals, the demonstration of finites.--We add farther, _that_ demonstration is the best, which furnishes the mind with the most ample knowledge; and this is alone the province of universals. Again, the principles of science become immediate only in proportion as the demonstration becomes universal; and he who knows universals, knows particulars in capacity: but we cannot infer, that he who has the best knowledge of particulars, knows any thing of universals. Lastly, that which is universal, is the province of intellect and reason, particulars are the offspring of sense; and hence we conclude that universal demonstration exceeds particular both in dignity and excellence, and is first in the nature of things, although last in the progressions of the reasoning power.

Again, That affirmative demonstration is superior to negative, appears from hence: the affirmative does not require the assistance of the negative; but the negative cannot exist without the affirmative; on which account, the demonstration composed from negatives alone, is incapable of producing real evidence and conviction. Besides, affirmation exceeds negation both in priority and simplicity of existence.

Again, the demonstration which concludes _directly_, is better than that which confirms a proposition by evincing the absurdity of its contrary. The first proceeding in a regular order, establishes, by a natural deduction, the truth which was first advanced. The second taking a wider circuit, yet with the same intentions produces a conclusion quite opposite to its apparent design. The one may be compared to the open attack of a valiant and skilful soldier, who expects the conquest of his enemy from strength and courage alone: the progress of the other resembles the same soldier, uniting force with stratagem, and advancing, by an irregular march, which his foe mistakes for a retreat, but finds the secret cause of his destruction. The first is simple and impromiscuous, as composed from propositions alone: the second is compound and miscellaneous, calling in hypothesis to its assistance.

21. One science is said to be prior to, and more certain than another in many respects;--when the one reasons from primary causes, but the other from such as are secondary:--when the one may be ranked in the genera of intelligibles and universals; but the other in the genera of sensibles and particulars. And such is the relation of arithmetic to music; of geometry to optics; and lastly, of every superior to every subordinate science. Again, this happens when the one reasons from simple principles, the other from such as are complex and connected; on which account arithmetic seems to possess greater certainty than geometry. For the principle of arithmetic is unity; but of geometry a point; and unity is without position, with which a point is always connected. And in this manner geometry inherits greater evidence than astronomy; for the one considers body simply, the other as connected with a circular motion. The science is called one which contemplates actions belonging to one genus: the genus is one which possesses the same first principles; and hence geometry and stereometry form one science. On the contrary, the sciences are called different which have different principles, such as geometry and optics; the latter of which does not originate from the principles of the former.

Again, the same thing may admit of many demonstrations, and may be known from many mediums: at one time from the application of such as are congenial: at another, from those of a different order or genus. From congenials, as when we demonstrate that the plantain is a substance, first, by the medium of a tree, and then by the medium of a plant, thus:

Every tree is a substance;

The plantain is a tree:

Therefore the plantain is a substance. And again,

Every plant is a substance:

The plantain is a plant:

Therefore the plantain is a substance.

We demonstrate, from mediums, of a following order or genus, as when we prove man to be a substance, at one one time from his being rational, at another from his being a biped; and these mediums, in part, mutually contain each other.

22. Fortuitous events can never, in any science, become the subject of demonstration; since they are neither limited by necessity, nor admit the arrangement of syllogism. Indeed, so far from obtaining a necessary, they do not possess a frequent existence, but every syllogism is composed from one or other of these.

Again, science is not the business of sense, since that which is universal is the object of perception in particulars themselves. For the object of sight is colour in general, and not this particular colour: the object of hearing is sound in general, and not any particular sound; and, on this account we see or hear not only this or that colour or sound, but likewise every other which falls under the cognizance of these senses. Hence, if it were possible for any one to discern by his sight, the equality of the three angles of some particular triangle to two right, he would not by this means possess a demonstration of the conclusion which affirms this to be the property of every triangle; but his knowledge would extend no farther than the triangle he inspects. Thus too, if we could perceive an eclipse of the moon to arise from the interposition of the earth, we could not universally conclude that this is the cause of every eclipse, but only of the particular one we behold. For the explication of causes extends to universals; and comprehends not only the knowledge of one particular defect of the moon, but simply of every eclipse; since the interposition of the earth is not so much the cause of any present eclipse, as of all which can possibly exist in every age. Whenever, then, the cause is universal, the knowledge of any effect deduced from such a cause is, in every respect, superior to the evidence arising from the perceptions of sense. It is likewise more excellent than the apprehension which subsists independent of the proper cause; as if any one should give absolute credit to the proposition, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right, without a previous conviction that the external angle of a triangle, is equal to the two interior opposite ones; and without applying this last proposition as the cause of the first. The comprehension, then, which is conjoined with the proper cause, far exceeds the strongest evidence of sense.

But perhaps it may be said that science consists in sense, because the science of any particular, fails from a defect of the sense by which it is apprehended. To this we reply, that science, indeed, is not acquired without the assistance of sense, but it does not follow from hence, that _to perceive_ is _to know_; because the object of science is that which is universal; but of sense, that which is particular. Thus, if we could see light penetrating the pores of glass (on the atomical hypothesis) the cause why it illuminates would be manifest from sensible inspection as the means, and from the universal apprehension of science, by which we should understand this to be universally true.

Again, the principles of all sciences cannot be the same neither considered as remote or proximate. Not considered as proximate, because the principles always correspond to the demonstrated conclusions; but these are not the same, since they are often generically different; and consequently the propositions from which they result must be derived from discordant genera. But propositions consist of such things as essentially exist; and hence we infer, that the principles of geometry are essentially distinguished from those of arithmetic, that they cannot admit of reciprocal accommodation, so that the one may be predicated, or become the subject of the other, and that the one can never be subservient as a medium to the other. Again, common and first principles are not applied in every science; such as this, that every thing must either be affirmed or denied. Nor can any thing be proved by their assistance alone, but as often as these are required in demonstration, other principles more proximate and peculiar to the given proposition, must always be adopted. Again, axioms universally conceived, cannot be assumed in syllogism, but they must be contracted, as it were, to some subject genus. Of this kind is that common axiom, that as often as any four quantities are proportionable, by permutation, or changing the order of the terms, the same ratio will result. For the arts apply this axiom in a restricted sense; geometry, by considering the relatives as four magnitudes, and arithmetic as four numbers; but the natural philosopher, by adapting the comparison to four motions, or four times. Besides, if the principles of all sciences were the same, it is necessary they should be comprehended by some certain number, similar to the limitation of the elements: but every science is capable of immense increase from the many different modes of amplification the conclusions will admit; and consequently it is requisite to establish a correspondent number of proper principles; for such as are common cannot be alone sufficient. Lastly, if the same principles accord with every science, it follows, that any thing may be demonstrated from such principles: but the certainty of geometrical conclusions cannot be established from the principles of music; and from hence it follows, that although the principles of every science are not the same, they do not possess an entire diversity, nor yet an absolute affinity of nature.

23. There is a remarkable difference between science and opinion. Whatever is the subject of science must have a necessary existence; on the contrary, opinion is conversant with things liable to mutation and decay. Again, as science depends on necessary propositions for support; so opinion on such as possess only a possibility of existence; and so there is one mode of approbation in subjects of opinion, and another in those of science. Hence science is distinguished from opinion by two discriminations, the one arising from their subjects, the other from the mode of approbation. That opinion is conversant with things possible or contingent, we may learn from hence; contingencies cannot belong to science, because their existence is not necessary; nor to intellect, or that principle of science by which its terms are known; nor to the apprehension or belief of immediate propositions, called indemonstrable science. Hence, if every habit by which truth is known, is either science, or intellect, or opinion, it remains that opinion alone consists of things which are, indeed, true; but not necessary. It is, therefore, inconstant and unstable, from the mutable nature of its subjects. Besides, no one thinks he possesses an opinion of things which he believes to have a necessary existence, so that they cannot be otherwise than they are; but to such conviction he properly gives the name of knowledge, and to its contrary the name of opinion.

Again, the same thing from the same propositions may at one time become the subject of knowledge, at another, of opinion; and this happens according to the different formation of the syllogism which the propositions compose; whether reasoning from the proper cause it explains the _why_, or only simply declares a thing exists. Hence a doubt arises why opinions of this kind may not be called science, since both the subjects and propositions are the same? The solution is obvious. If it is believed that the propositions cannot be otherwise than they are, or that they have a necessary existence, such an assent of the mind is not opinion, but science; because things which inherit an essential existence are the ornaments of science alone. On the contrary, if we are convinced that the propositions are true, but at the same time not necessary, such conviction is not science, but opinion. Hence, it is impossible that science and opinion can be the same, since they vary in their definition and mode of approbation, and in a different manner demand our belief. Similar to this, although it may happen that of the same thing a true and a false opinion may arise, it will not therefore follow, that true and false opinions are the same. For that which is firm and constant can never be the same with that which is mutable and frail; and that which is always true must be essentially different from that which may be changed into false. By the power of habit indeed in different men, the same thing may be comprehended by opinion and science. Thus it was opinion in Epicurus when he said that the sun was eclipsed by the moon passing under its orb, because he thought it might otherwise happen, and that the moon might be interposed without obscuring the light of the sun. It was science in Hipparchus, because he knew it as a necessary event. But in the same mind, at the same time, and of the same thing, it is impossible that science and opinion can exist. And thus much concerning the difference of the two.

24. Lastly, sagacity is an acute and sudden apprehension of the medium, or proper cause of a certain effect: as if any one, beholding the moon, should in a moment conjecture the cause of the part opposite to the sun being lucid, and the other parts obscure, because she derives her splendor from the sun. Hence he is universally called acute and sagacious, who, from the aspect or hearing of the extremes, can readily perceive the medium which exists between them: as the term imports a certain revolution of the conclusion into its first propositions, and, as it were, a swift comprehension and continuation of the medium.