§ 1. it is so much the established practice of writers on logic to commence their treatises by a few general observations (in most cases, it is true, rather meagre) on terms and their varieties, that it will, perhaps, scarcely be required from me in merely following the common usage, to be as particular in assigning my reasons, as it is usually expected that those should be who deviate from it.
the practice, indeed, is recommended by considerations far too obvious to require a formal justification. logic is a portion of the art of thinking: language is evidently, and by the admission of all philosophers, one of the principal instruments or helps of thought; and any imperfection in the instrument, or in the mode of employing it, is confessedly liable, still more than in almost any other art, to confuse and impede the process, and destroy all ground of confidence in the result. for a mind not previously versed in the meaning and right use of the various kinds of words, to attempt the study of methods of philosophizing, would be as if some one should attempt to become an astronomical observer, having never learned to adjust the focal distance of his optical instruments so as to see distinctly.
since reasoning, or inference, the principal subject of logic, is an operation which usually takes place by means of words, and in complicated cases can take place in no other way; those who have not a thorough insight into the signification and purposes of words, will be under chances, amounting almost to certainty, of reasoning or inferring incorrectly. and logicians have generally felt that unless, in the very first stage, they removed this source of error; unless they taught their [pg 18]pupil to put away the glasses which distort the object, and to use those which are adapted to his purpose in such a manner as to assist, not perplex, his vision; he would not be in a condition to practise the remaining part of their discipline with any prospect of advantage. therefore it is that an inquiry into language, so far as is needful to guard against the errors to which it gives rise, has at all times been deemed a necessary preliminary to the study of logic.
but there is another reason, of a still more fundamental nature, why the import of words should be the earliest subject of the logician's consideration: because without it he cannot examine into the import of propositions. now this is a subject which stands on the very threshold of the science of logic.
the object of logic, as defined in the introductory chapter, is to ascertain how we come by that portion of our knowledge (much the greatest portion) which is not intuitive: and by what criterion we can, in matters not self-evident, distinguish between things proved and things not proved, between what is worthy and what is unworthy of belief. of the various questions which present themselves to our inquiring faculties, some receive an answer from direct consciousness, others, if resolved at all, can only be resolved by means of evidence. logic is concerned with these last. but before inquiring into the mode of resolving questions, it is necessary to inquire what are those which offer themselves; what questions are conceivable; what inquiries are there, to which mankind have either obtained, or been able to imagine it possible that they should obtain, an answer. this point is best ascertained by a survey and analysis of propositions.
§ 2. the answer to every question which it is possible to frame, must be contained in a proposition, or assertion. whatever can be an object of belief, or even of disbelief, must, when put into words, assume the form of a proposition. all truth and all error lie in propositions. what, by a convenient misapplication of an abstract term, we call a truth, means simply a true proposition; and errors are false propositions. [pg 19]to know the import of all possible propositions, would be to know all questions which can be raised, all matters which are susceptible of being either believed or disbelieved. how many kinds of inquiries can be propounded; how many kinds of judgments can be made; and how many kinds of propositions it is possible to frame with a meaning; are but different forms of one and the same question. since, then, the objects of all belief and of all inquiry express themselves in propositions; a sufficient scrutiny of propositions and of their varieties will apprize us what questions mankind have actually asked of themselves, and what, in the nature of answers to those questions, they have actually thought they had grounds to believe.
now the first glance at a proposition shows that it is formed by putting together two names. a proposition, according to the common simple definition, which is sufficient for our purpose, is, discourse, in which something is affirmed or denied of something. thus, in the proposition, gold is yellow, the quality yellow is affirmed of the substance gold. in the proposition, franklin was not born in england, the fact expressed by the words born in england is denied of the man franklin.
every proposition consists of three parts: the subject, the predicate, and the copula. the predicate is the name denoting that which is affirmed or denied. the subject is the name denoting the person or thing which something is affirmed or denied of. the copula is the sign denoting that there is an affirmation or denial; and thereby enabling the hearer or reader to distinguish a proposition from any other kind of discourse. thus, in the proposition, the earth is round, the predicate is the word round, which denotes the quality affirmed, or (as the phrase is) predicated: the earth, words denoting the object which that quality is affirmed of, compose the subject; the word is, which serves as the connecting mark between the subject and predicate, to show that one of them is affirmed of the other, is called the copula.
dismissing, for the present, the copula, of which more will be said hereafter, every proposition, then, consists of at least [pg 20]two names; brings together two names, in a particular manner. this is already a first step towards what we are in quest of. it appears from this, that for an act of belief, one object is not sufficient; the simplest act of belief supposes, and has something to do with, two objects: two names, to say the least; and (since the names must be names of something) two nameable things. a large class of thinkers would cut the matter short by saying, two ideas. they would say, that the subject and predicate are both of them names of ideas; the idea of gold, for instance, and the idea of yellow; and that what takes place (or part of what takes place) in the act of belief, consists in bringing (as it is often expressed) one of these ideas under the other. but this we are not yet in a condition to say: whether such be the correct mode of describing the phenomenon, is an after consideration. the result with which for the present we must be contented, is, that in every act of belief two objects are in some manner taken cognizance of; that there can be no belief claimed, or question propounded, which does not embrace two distinct (either material or intellectual) subjects of thought; each of them capable, or not, of being conceived by itself, but incapable of being believed by itself.
i may say, for instance, "the sun." the word has a meaning, and suggests that meaning to the mind of any one who is listening to me. but suppose i ask him, whether it is true: whether he believes it? he can give no answer. there is as yet nothing to believe, or to disbelieve. now, however, let me make, of all possible assertions respecting the sun, the one which involves the least of reference to any object besides itself; let me say, "the sun exists." here, at once, is something which a person can say he believes. but here, instead of only one, we find two distinct objects of conception: the sun is one object; existence is another. let it not be said that this second conception, existence, is involved in the first; for the sun may be conceived as no longer existing. "the sun" does not convey all the meaning that is conveyed by "the sun exists:" "my father" does not include all the meaning of "my father exists," for he may be dead; "a round [pg 21]square" does not include the meaning of "a round square exists," for it does not and cannot exist. when i say "the sun," "my father," or a "round square," i do not call upon the hearer for any belief or disbelief, nor can either the one or the other be afforded me; but if i say, "the sun exists," "my father exists," or "a round square exists," i call for belief; and should, in the first of the three instances, meet with it; in the second, with belief or disbelief, as the case might be; in the third, with disbelief.
§ 3. this first step in the analysis of the object of belief, which, though so obvious, will be found to be not unimportant, is the only one which we shall find it practicable to make without a preliminary survey of language. if we attempt to proceed further in the same path, that is, to analyse any further the import of propositions; we find forced upon us, as a subject of previous consideration, the import of names. for every proposition consists of two names; and every proposition affirms or denies one of these names, of the other. now what we do, what passes in our mind, when we affirm or deny two names of one another, must depend on what they are names of; since it is with reference to that, and not to the mere names themselves, that we make the affirmation or denial. here, therefore, we find a new reason why the signification of names, and the relation generally between names and the things signified by them, must occupy the preliminary stage of the inquiry we are engaged in.
it may be objected that the meaning of names can guide us at most only to the opinions, possibly the foolish and groundless opinions, which mankind have formed concerning things, and that as the object of philosophy is truth, not opinion, the philosopher should dismiss words and look into things themselves, to ascertain what questions can be asked and answered in regard to them. this advice (which no one has it in his power to follow) is in reality an exhortation to discard the whole fruits of the labours of his predecessors, and conduct himself as if he were the first person who had ever turned an inquiring eye upon nature. what does any one's [pg 22]personal knowledge of things amount to, after subtracting all which he has acquired by means of the words of other people? even after he has learned as much as people usually do learn from others, will the notions of things contained in his individual mind afford as sufficient a basis for a catalogue raisonné as the notions which are in the minds of all mankind?
in any enumeration and classification of things, which does not set out from their names, no varieties of things will of course be comprehended but those recognised by the particular inquirer; and it will still remain to be established, by a subsequent examination of names, that the enumeration has omitted nothing which ought to have been included. but if we begin with names, and use them as our clue to the things, we bring at once before us all the distinctions which have been recognised, not by a single inquirer, but by all inquirers taken together. it doubtless may, and i believe it will, be found, that mankind have multiplied the varieties unnecessarily, and have imagined distinctions among things, where there were only distinctions in the manner of naming them. but we are not entitled to assume this in the commencement. we must begin by recognising the distinctions made by ordinary language. if some of these appear, on a close examination, not to be fundamental, the enumeration of the different kinds of realities may be abridged accordingly. but to impose upon the facts in the first instance the yoke of a theory, while the grounds of the theory are reserved for discussion in a subsequent stage, is not a course which a logician can reasonably adopt.
