Principles of Logic Roehampton : Printed by John Griffin ^Principles of Logic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC ROEHAMPTON : PRINTED BY JOHN GRIFFIN ^PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC By GEORGE HAYWARD JOYCE, S.J. M.A., ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD PROFESSOR OF LOGIC, ST. MARY S HALL, STONYHURST *.r LONGMANS, GREEN & CO 39, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON NEW YORK. BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 1908 INTRODUCTION THIS work is an attempt at a presentment of what is fre quently termed the Traditional Logic, and is intended for those who are making acquaintance with philosophical questions for the first time. Yet it is impossible, even in a text-book such as this, to deal with logical questions save in connexion with definite metaphysical and epistemolo- gical principles. Logic, as the theory of the mind s rational processes in regard of their validity, must neces sarily be part of a larger philosophical system. Indeed when this is not the case, it becomes a mere collection of technical rules, possessed of little importance and of less interest. The point of view adopted in this book is that of the Scholastic as far as is philosophy ; and compatible with the size and purpose of the work, some attempt has been made to vindicate the fundamental principles on which that philosophy is based. From one point of view, this position should prove a source of strength. The thinkers who elaborated our sys tem of Logic, were Scholastics. With the principles of that philosophy, its doctrines and its rules are in full accord. In the light of Scholasticism, the system is a connected whole ; and the subjects, traditionally treated in it, have each of them its legitimate place. When a writer adopts some other standpoint, it is in evitable that his Logic must be remodelled, if it is to be in harmony with his philosophical principles. For some parts of the traditional ^cience, there will be no place in his scheme. And though these subjects may find treatment in his work, yet it will be manifest that v vi INTRODUCTION they are present as unwelcome guests, only tolerated out of deference to custom and the exigencies of a popular demand. In such a case, a young student may well be excused, if he fails to grasp the bearing of the question at issue. From another point of view, it might seem that Scholas tic principles must be a source of weakness. Have not, it will be asked, the universities, one and all, long since discarded Scholasticism ? That this is true of all those universities which have submitted to secular influences, must be frankly admitted. At our ancient seats of learning, there has been a complete neglect of the great mediaeval philosophers, the repre sentatives of that once famous school. The names of Albert the Great, of St. Thomas Aquinas, of Duns Scotus are never mentioned. It is not that they are weighed and found wanting. They are ignored. It is assumed that there is nothing in them worth knowing. The prac tice of what certain German writers have termed the over the uber das leap middle ages (der Sprung Mittelalter} , has been universal. From Plotinus to Bacon has been 1 regarded as a blank in the history of philosophy. Yet by common consent the period thus ignored was one of intense philosophic activity. Metaphysical pro blems were discussed with an interest, a zeal, an acumen since of the intellects the unknown ; and some greatest world has ever seen were nurtured in the schools of the day. Nor was the philosophy of the Scholastics one of those immature systems, which arise when the mind of man is called to grapple for the first time with the great problems of the universe. These men had inherited the two streams of Greek and Arabian thought. They had 1 It is with pleasure we notice that at Oxford the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas is now recommended to candidates for theological honours, and his Summa contra Gentiles has been made an optional subject in the school of Littera httmantores. But this welcome change only testifies to the complete neglect which has so long prevailed.J INTRODUCTION vii set themselves to master and to develop the conclusions of Plato, of Aristotle, of Avicenna, of Averroes. They were influenced not by the Peripatetic school alone, but further by Stoicism, Neo-platonism, Augustinianism. 1 It is significant that nearly every thinker, even of those occupying a hostile position, who has devoted enough time and attention to understand the matter, has expressed his admiration for the great synthesis effected 3 by the Scholastic philosophers. When, therefore, the Neo-Scholastics of to-day avail themselves of the results attained in that epoch, no wise man will consider that this is likely to impair the value of their conclusions. They are but claiming their share in the great inheritance of the past. The deliberate ignoring of so famous a period, and one so fruitful for the civilization of Europe, may well provide matter for reflection. For continuity is the law of human progress. Advance must ever be won by building on the foundations laid by our predecessors. The nature of man, as essentially social, involves his subjection to this law. 1 Cf. de Wulf, Scholasticism Old and New, trans, by P. Coffey, p. 45. Picavet, Esquisse d une histoire des philosophies midiivales. J The opinions of two authors neither of whom can be accused of sympathy with Scholasticism may be of interest. Professor Huxley writes as follows : " The Scholastic philosophy is a wonderful monument of the patience and ingenuity with which the human mind toiled to build up a logically consistent theory of the Universe. And that philosophy is by no means dead and buried as many vainly suppose. On the contrary, numbers of men of no mean learning and accomplishment and sometimes of rare power and subtlety of thought, hold by it as the best theory of things which has yet been stated. And what is still more remarkable, men who speak the language of modern philo sophy, nevertheless think the thoughts of the Schoolmen." Science and Culture, Lect. 2. Universities, p. 41. Somewhat similarly von Hartmann speaks of Scholasticism as " a wonderful and close-knit system of thought, of which none can think lightly save those who have not yet overcome the bias of party- feeling nor learnt to view things from an objective standpoint." Die Selbst- tersetzung des Christenthums, p. 75. It would not be difficult to multiply such testimonies from the great minds of every century. Thus Hugo Grotius writes, Ubi in re morali consentiunt [Scholastici] vix est ut errent. De Jure Belli et Pads, Proleg : 52. Cf. also Leibniz, Epist. ad Thomasium, 49, and Trois Letlres a M.de Montnwrt, Lettre III. On the other hand the atheist Diderot says of Scholasticism, Cette philosophic a 6t6 une des plus grandes plaies del esprit humain." (Euvres, torn. xix. p. 372. viii INTRODUCTION " Pascal has well said, C est grace a la tradition que toute la suite des homines pendant le cours de tant de sicles doit etre consideree comme un meme homme, qui sub- 1 siste toujours et qui apprend continuellement." The attempt to break with the past, to dispense with what former generations have accomplished, to pull down what they have laboriously built and to make a fresh beginning, has ever ended in failure. No forward step has ever been taken in that for so to act is to violate way ; a fundamental law of our nature. Movements thus initiated have been retrograde, not progressive. Yet this is what the men of the Renaissance strove to do in regard to the Christian civilization of the middle ages. They put aside as valueless the hardly-won results of five centuries of strenuous effort. Of that great revolt against the past, the repudiation of the traditional philosophy was an integral part. It was Descartes who first framed a new synthesis, which in some measure filled the place once held by the Scholastic system. He, more than any other man, has a right to be regarded as the father of modern philosophy. And it is not without its lesson to note that he assigns as his reason for holding the philosophy of the School to be worthless, that it was the work not of a single mind but of many minds. 2 Since the days of Descartes, many another philosophical system, idealist, sensationalist and materialist, has been offered as a solution of the world s riddles. These systems differ widely among themselves. But one common fea ture differentiates them all alike from Scholasticism. They simplify the problem by the omission of some es sential element. This characteristic seems inseparable from any system which severs itself from that which has been aptly termed the main stream of European thought. 1 Preface to the treatise Du Vide. a Descartes, Meditation I. INTRODUCTION if The factors, with which philosophy must deal, are three God, the world, and the human soul. The Scholastic philosophy faced the problem in its completeness : it shirked no element of it. It is creationist, thus distin guishing between God as Absolute and Unconditioned Being on the one hand, and the soul and the world as Contingent Being on the other. As regards the soul, it is materialist in relation to the spiritualist, not ; and pro blem of knowledge, it is objectivist, teaching that the intellect is capable of valid cognition in regard of that external order with which it is brought into contact by the senses. 1 In the novel philosophies proposed as substitutes for Scholasticism, sometimes one of the three factors, some times another, is omitted ; and thus the solution remains unsatisfactory and inadequate.