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！
included in A； then E will be included in A。 Similarly if the
syllogism is negative。 In the second figure it will be possible to
infer only that which is subordinate to the conclusion； e。g。 if A
belongs to no B and to all C； we conclude that B belongs to no C。 If
then D is subordinate to C； clearly B does not belong to it。 But
that B does not belong to what is subordinate to A is not clear by
means of the syllogism。 And yet B does not belong to E； if E is
subordinate to A。 But while it has been proved through the syllogism
that B belongs to no C； it has been assumed without proof that B
does not belong to A； consequently it does not result through the
syllogism that B does not belong to E。
But in particular syllogisms there will be no necessity of inferring
what is subordinate to the conclusion （for a syllogism does not result
when this premiss is particular）； but whatever is subordinate to the
middle term may be inferred； not however through the syllogism； e。g。
if A belongs to all B and B to some C。 Nothing can be inferred about
that which is subordinate to C； something can be inferred about that
which is subordinate to B； but not through the preceding syllogism。
Similarly in the other figures。 That which is subordinate to the
conclusion cannot be proved； the other subordinate can be proved； only
not through the syllogism； just as in the universal syllogisms what is
subordinate to the middle term is proved （as we saw） from a premiss
which is not demonstrated： consequently either a conclusion is not
possible in the case of universal syllogisms or else it is possible
also in the case of particular syllogisms。
2
It is possible for the premisses of the syllogism to be true； or
to be false； or to be the one true； the other false。 The conclusion is
either true or false necessarily。 From true premisses it is not
possible to draw a false conclusion； but a true conclusion may be
drawn from false premisses； true however only in respect to the
fact； not to the reason。 The reason cannot be established from false
premisses： why this is so will be explained in the sequel。
First then that it is not possible to draw a false conclusion from
true premisses； is made clear by this consideration。 If it is
necessary that B should be when A is； it is necessary that A should
not be when B is not。 If then A is true； B must be true： otherwise
it will turn out that the same thing both is and is not at the same
time。 But this is impossible。 Let it not； because A is laid down as
a single term； be supposed that it is possible； when a single fact
is given； that something should necessarily result。 For that is not
possible。 For what results necessarily is the conclusion； and the
means by which this comes about are at the least three terms； and
two relations of subject and predicate or premisses。 If then it is
true that A belongs to all that to which B belongs； and that B belongs
to all that to which C belongs； it is necessary that A should belong
to all that to which C belongs； and this cannot be false： for then the
same thing will belong and not belong at the same time。 So A is
posited as one thing； being two premisses taken together。 The same
holds good of negative syllogisms： it is not possible to prove a false
conclusion from true premisses。
But from what is false a true conclusion may be drawn； whether
both the premisses are false or only one； provided that this is not
either of the premisses indifferently； if it is taken as wholly false：
but if the premiss is not taken as wholly false； it does not matter
which of the two is false。 （1） Let A belong to the whole of C； but
to none of the Bs； neither let B belong to C。 This is possible； e。g。
animal belongs to no stone； nor stone to any man。 If then A is taken
to belong to all B and B to all C； A will belong to all C；
consequently though both the premisses are false the conclusion is
true： for every man is an animal。 Similarly with the negative。 For
it is possible that neither A nor B should belong to any C； although A
belongs to all B； e。g。 if the same terms are taken and man is put as
middle： for neither animal nor man belongs to any stone； but animal
belongs to every man。 Consequently if one term is taken to belong to
none of that to which it does belong； and the other term is taken to
belong to all of that to which it does not belong； though both the
premisses are false the conclusion will be true。 （2） A similar proof
may be given if each premiss is partially false。
（3） But if one only of the premisses is false； when the first
premiss is wholly false； e。g。 AB； the conclusion will not be true； but
if the premiss BC is wholly false； a true conclusion will be possible。
I mean by 'wholly false' the contrary of the truth； e。g。 if what
belongs to none is assumed to belong to all； or if what belongs to all
is assumed to belong to none。 Let A belong to no B； and B to all C。 If
then the premiss BC which I take is true； and the premiss AB is wholly
false； viz。 that A belongs to all B； it is impossible that the
conclusion should be true： for A belonged to none of the Cs； since A
belonged to nothing to which B belonged； and B belonged to all C。
Similarly there cannot be a true conclusion if A belongs to all B； and
B to all C； but while the true premiss BC is assumed； the wholly false
premiss AB is also assumed； viz。 that A belongs to nothing to which
B belongs： here the conclusion must be false。 For A will belong to all
C； since A belongs to everything to which B belongs； and B to all C。
It is clear then that when the first premiss is wholly false；
whether affirmative or negative； and the other premiss is true； the
conclusion cannot be true。
（4） But if the premiss is not wholly false； a true conclusion is
possible。 For if A belongs to all C and to some B； and if B belongs to
all C； e。g。 animal to every swan and to some white thing； and white to
every swan； then if we take as premisses that A belongs to all B；
and B to all C； A will belong to all C truly： for every swan is an
animal。 Similarly if the statement AB is negative。 For it is
possible that A should belong to some B and to no C； and that B should
belong to all C； e。g。 animal to some white thing； but to no snow；
and white to all snow。 If then one should assume that A belongs to
no B； and B to all C； then will belong to no C。
（5） But if the premiss AB； which is assumed； is wholly true； and the
premiss BC is wholly false； a true syllogism will be possible： for
nothing prevents A belonging to all B and to all C； though B belongs
to no C； e。g。 these being species of the same genus which are not
subordinate one to the other： for animal belongs both to horse and
to man； but horse to no man。 If then it is assumed that A belongs to
all B and B to all C； the conclusion will be true； although the
premiss BC is wholly false。 Similarly if the premiss AB is negative。
For it is possible that A should belong neither to any B nor to any C；
and that B should not belong to any C； e。g。 a genus to species of
another genus： for animal belongs neither to music nor to the art of
healing； nor does music belong to the art of healing。 If then it is
assumed that A belongs to no B； and B to all C； the conclusion will be
true。
（6） And if the premiss BC is not wholly false but in part only； even
so the conclusion may be true。 For nothing prevents A belonging to the
whole of B and of C； while B belongs to some C； e。g。 a genus to its
species an