按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
terms。 Clearly then； if both the premisses are problematic； no
syllogism results。
18
But if one premiss is assertoric； the other problematic； if the
affirmative is assertoric and the negative problematic no syllogism
will be possible； whether the premisses are universal or particular。
The proof is the same as above； and by means of the same terms。 But
when the affirmative premiss is problematic； and the negative
assertoric； we shall have a syllogism。 Suppose A belongs to no B；
but can belong to all C。 If the negative proposition is converted； B
will belong to no A。 But ex hypothesi can belong to all C： so a
syllogism is made； proving by means of the first figure that B may
belong to no C。 Similarly also if the minor premiss is negative。 But
if both premisses are negative； one being assertoric； the other
problematic； nothing follows necessarily from these premisses as
they stand； but if the problematic premiss is converted into its
complementary affirmative a syllogism is formed to prove that B may
belong to no C； as before： for we shall again have the first figure。
But if both premisses are affirmative； no syllogism will be
possible。 This arrangement of terms is possible both when the relation
is positive； e。g。 health； animal； man； and when it is negative； e。g。
health； horse； man。
The same will hold good if the syllogisms are particular。 Whenever
the affirmative proposition is assertoric； whether universal or
particular； no syllogism is possible （this is proved similarly and
by the same examples as above）； but when the negative proposition is
assertoric； a conclusion can be drawn by means of conversion； as
before。 Again if both the relations are negative； and the assertoric
proposition is universal； although no conclusion follows from the
actual premisses； a syllogism can be obtained by converting the
problematic premiss into its complementary affirmative as before。
But if the negative proposition is assertoric； but particular； no
syllogism is possible； whether the other premiss is affirmative or
negative。 Nor can a conclusion be drawn when both premisses are
indefinite； whether affirmative or negative； or particular。 The
proof is the same and by the same terms。
19
If one of the premisses is necessary； the other problematic； then if
the negative is necessary a syllogistic conclusion can be drawn； not
merely a negative problematic but also a negative assertoric
conclusion； but if the affirmative premiss is necessary； no conclusion
is possible。 Suppose that A necessarily belongs to no B； but may
belong to all C。 If the negative premiss is converted B will belong to
no A： but A ex hypothesi is capable of belonging to all C： so once
more a conclusion is drawn by the first figure that B may belong to no
C。 But at the same time it is clear that B will not belong to any C。
For assume that it does： then if A cannot belong to any B； and B
belongs to some of the Cs； A cannot belong to some of the Cs： but ex
hypothesi it may belong to all。 A similar proof can be given if the
minor premiss is negative。 Again let the affirmative proposition be
necessary； and the other problematic； i。e。 suppose that A may belong
to no B； but necessarily belongs to all C。 When the terms are arranged
in this way； no syllogism is possible。 For （1） it sometimes turns
out that B necessarily does not belong to C。 Let A be white； B man；
C swan。 White then necessarily belongs to swan； but may belong to no
man； and man necessarily belongs to no swan； Clearly then we cannot
draw a problematic conclusion； for that which is necessary is
admittedly distinct from that which is possible。 （2） Nor again can
we draw a necessary conclusion： for that presupposes that both
premisses are necessary； or at any rate the negative premiss。 （3）
Further it is possible also； when the terms are so arranged； that B
should belong to C： for nothing prevents C falling under B； A being
possible for all B； and necessarily belonging to C； e。g。 if C stands
for 'awake'； B for 'animal'； A for 'motion'。 For motion necessarily
belongs to what is awake； and is possible for every animal： and
everything that is awake is animal。 Clearly then the conclusion cannot
be the negative assertion； if the relation must be positive when the
terms are related as above。 Nor can the opposite affirmations be
established： consequently no syllogism is possible。 A similar proof is
possible if the major premiss is affirmative。
But if the premisses are similar in quality； when they are
negative a syllogism can always be formed by converting the
problematic premiss into its complementary affirmative as before。
Suppose A necessarily does not belong to B； and possibly may not
belong to C： if the premisses are converted B belongs to no A； and A
may possibly belong to all C： thus we have the first figure。 Similarly
if the minor premiss is negative。 But if the premisses are affirmative
there cannot be a syllogism。 Clearly the conclusion cannot be a
negative assertoric or a negative necessary proposition because no
negative premiss has been laid down either in the assertoric or in the
necessary mode。 Nor can the conclusion be a problematic negative
proposition。 For if the terms are so related； there are cases in which
B necessarily will not belong to C； e。g。 suppose that A is white； B
swan； C man。 Nor can the opposite affirmations be established； since
we have shown a case in which B necessarily does not belong to C。 A
syllogism then is not possible at all。
Similar relations will obtain in particular syllogisms。 For whenever
the negative proposition is universal and necessary； a syllogism
will always be possible to prove both a problematic and a negative
assertoric proposition （the proof proceeds by conversion）； but when
the affirmative proposition is universal and necessary； no syllogistic
conclusion can be drawn。 This can be proved in the same way as for
universal propositions； and by the same terms。 Nor is a syllogistic
conclusion possible when both premisses are affirmative： this also may
be proved as above。 But when both premisses are negative； and the
premiss that definitely disconnects two terms is universal and
necessary； though nothing follows necessarily from the premisses as
they are stated； a conclusion can be drawn as above if the problematic
premiss is converted into its complementary affirmative。 But if both
are indefinite or particular； no syllogism can be formed。 The same
proof will serve； and the same terms。
It is clear then from what has been said that if the universal and
negative premiss is necessary； a syllogism is always possible； proving
not merely a negative problematic； but also a negative assertoric
proposition； but if the affirmative premiss is necessary no conclusion
can be drawn。 It is clear too that a syllogism is possible or not
under the same conditions whether the mode of the premisses is
assertoric or necessary。 And it is clear that all the syllogisms are
imperfect； and are completed by means of the figures mentioned。
20
In the last figure a syllogism is possible whether both or only
one of the premisses is problematic。 When the premisses are
problematic the conclusion will be problematic； and also when one
premiss is problematic； the other assertoric。 But when the other
premiss is necessary； if it is affirmative the conclusion will be
neither necessary or ass