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！
an enthymeme is a syllogism starting from probabilities or signs；
and a sign may be taken in three ways； corresponding to the position
of the middle term in the figures。 For it may be taken as in the first
figure or the second or the third。 For example the proof that a
woman is with child because she has milk is in the first figure： for
to have milk is the middle term。 Let A represent to be with child； B
to have milk； C woman。 The proof that wise men are good； since
Pittacus is good； comes through the last figure。 Let A stand for good；
B for wise men； C for Pittacus。 It is true then to affirm both A and B
of C： only men do not say the latter； because they know it； though
they state the former。 The proof that a woman is with child because
she is pale is meant to come through the middle figure： for since
paleness follows women with child and is a concomitant of this
woman； people suppose it has been proved that she is with child。 Let A
stand for paleness； B for being with child； C for woman。 Now if the
one proposition is stated； we have only a sign； but if the other is
stated as well； a syllogism； e。g。 'Pittacus is generous； since
ambitious men are generous and Pittacus is ambitious。' Or again
'Wise men are good； since Pittacus is not only good but wise。' In this
way then syllogisms are formed； only that which proceeds through the
first figure is irrefutable if it is true （for it is universal）；
that which proceeds through the last figure is refutable even if the
conclusion is true； since the syllogism is not universal nor
correlative to the matter in question： for though Pittacus is good； it
is not therefore necessary that all other wise men should be good。 But
the syllogism which proceeds through the middle figure is always
refutable in any case： for a syllogism can never be formed when the
terms are related in this way： for though a woman with child is
pale； and this woman also is pale； it is not necessary that she should
be with child。 Truth then may be found in signs whatever their kind；
but they have the differences we have stated。
We must either divide signs in the way stated； and among them
designate the middle term as the index （for people call that the index
which makes us know； and the middle term above all has this
character）； or else we must call the arguments derived from the
extremes signs； that derived from the middle term the index： for
that which is proved through the first figure is most generally
accepted and most true。
It is possible to infer character from features； if it is granted
that the body and the soul are changed together by the natural
affections： I say 'natural'； for though perhaps by learning music a
man has made some change in his soul； this is not one of those
affections which are natural to us； rather I refer to passions and
desires when I speak of natural emotions。 If then this were granted
and also that for each change there is a corresponding sign； and we
could state the affection and sign proper to each kind of animal； we
shall be able to infer character from features。 For if there is an
affection which belongs properly to an individual kind； e。g。 courage
to lions； it is necessary that there should be a sign of it： for ex
hypothesi body and soul are affected together。 Suppose this sign is
the possession of large extremities： this may belong to other kinds
also though not universally。 For the sign is proper in the sense
stated； because the affection is proper to the whole kind； though
not proper to it alone； according to our usual manner of speaking。 The
same thing then will be found in another kind； and man may be brave；
and some other kinds of animal as well。 They will then have the
sign： for ex hypothesi there is one sign corresponding to each
affection。 If then this is so； and we can collect signs of this sort
in these animals which have only one affection proper to them…but each
affection has its sign； since it is necessary that it should have a
single sign…we shall then be able to infer character from features。
But if the kind as a whole has two properties； e。g。 if the lion is
both brave and generous； how shall we know which of the signs which
are its proper concomitants is the sign of a particular affection？
Perhaps if both belong to some other kind though not to the whole of
it； and if； in those kinds in which each is found though not in the
whole of their members； some members possess one of the affections and
not the other： e。g。 if a man is brave but not generous； but possesses；
of the two signs； large extremities； it is clear that this is the sign
of courage in the lion also。 To judge character from features； then；
is possible in the first figure if the middle term is convertible with
the first extreme； but is wider than the third term and not
convertible with it： e。g。 let A stand for courage； B for large
extremities； and C for lion。 B then belongs to everything to which C
belongs； but also to others。 But A belongs to everything to which B
belongs； and to nothing besides； but is convertible with B： otherwise；
there would not be a single sign correlative with each affection。
…THE END…
。