網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

us in words. Although such seems to be the ordinary meaning of the term, we may admit the possibility of propositions existing wholly in the mind, without being expressed in words. Mr. Locke expressly speaks of mental propositions, or those states of mind where two or more ideas are combined together previous to their being im bodied and set forth in the forms of language.

The parts of the proposition are, (1.) The SUBJECT, or that concerning which something is either asserted or denied, commanded or inquired. (2.) The PREDICATE, or that which is asserted, denied, commanded, or inquired concerning the subject. (3.) The COPULA, by which the two other parts are connected. In these two propositions, Cæsar was brave,

Men are fallible,

Men and Cæsar are the subjects; fallible and brave are the predicates; are and was are the copulas.

Propositions have been divided, (1.) Into SIMPLE, or those whose subject and predicate are composed of single words, as in this:

Benevolence is commendable. (2.) Into COMPLEX, or those where the subject and predicate consist of a number of words, as in this: Faithfulness in religion is followed by peace of mind. (3.) Into modal, where the copula is qualified by some word or words, representing the manner or possibility of the agreement or discrepancy between the subject and predicate, as in these:

Men of learning can exert an influence;

Wars may sometimes be just.

PROPOSITIONS, more or less involved, are necessary parts in every process of reasoning. They may be compared to the separate and disjointed blocks of marble which are destined to enter into the formation of some edifice; the completed process of reasoning is the edifice, the propositions are the materials.

176. Process of the mind in all cases of reasoning.

Leaving the consideration of its subordinate parts or elements, we are further to consider the general nature of reasoning; in other words, we are to examine the

character of the complex mental process involved in that term. The definition given of reasoning, it will be remembered, was, that it is the mental process by which we deduce conclusions from two or more propositions premised. Hence there will be in every such process a succession of propositions, never less than two, and often a much greater number. The propositions often follow each other with much regularity; and hence not unfrequently we consider the arrangement of them as entirely arbitrary. This is a mistaken supposition. It is true, when a number of ideas or propositions are presented nearly at the same time, the mind puts forth a volition, or exercises choice, in selecting one idea or proposition in preference to another. But the ideas or propositions from which the choice is made, and without the presence of which it could not be made, are not brought into exist ence by a direct volition, and, therefore, mere arbitrary creations; but are suggested by the laws of association

§ 177. Illustration of the preceding statement.

As an illustration of what has been said, we will suppose an argument on the justice and expediency of capital punishments in ordinary cases. The disputant first denies, in general terms, the right which social combinations have assumed of capitally punishing offences of a slight nature. But, before considering the cases he has particularly in view, he remarks on the right of capital punishment for murder; he admits, we will suppose, that the principle of self-defence gives such a right. He then. takes up the case of stealing, and contends that we have no right to punish the thief with death, because no such right is given by the laws of nature; for, before the formation of the civil compact, the institution of property, as a matter of civil and judicial regulation, was not known. He then considers the nature of civil society, and contends that, in the formation of the social compact, no such extraordinary power as that of putting to death for stealing, or other crimes of similar aggravation, could have been implied in that compact, because it never was possessed by those who formed it, &c.

Here is an argument, made up of a number of propo

R

sitions, and carried on, as may be supposed, to a very considerable length. And in this argument, as in all others, every proposition is, in the first instance, suggested by the laws of association; it is not at all a matter of arbitrary volition. The disputant first states the inquiry in general terms; he then considers the particular case of murder; the crime of theft is next considered; and this is examined, first, in reference to natural law, and afterward in reference to civil law. And this consecution of propositions takes place in essentially the same way as when the sight of a stranger in the crowd suggests the image of an old friend, and the friend suggests the village of his residence, and the village suggests an ancient ruin in its neighbourhood, and the ruin suggests warriors and battles of other days. It is true that other propositions may have been suggested at the same time, and the disputant may have had his choice between them, but this was all the direct voluntary power which he possessed.

§ 178. Grounds of the selection of propositions.

A number of propositions are presented to the mind by the principles of association; the person who carries on the process of reasoning makes his selection among them. But it is reasonable to inquire, How it happens that there is such a suitableness or agreement in the propositions, as they are successively adopted into the train of reasoning? And this seems to be no other than to inquire into the circumstances under which the choice of them is made, or the grounds of the selection.

Let it be considered, then, that in all arguments, whether moral or demonstrative, there is some general subject on which the evidence is made to bear; there is some point in particular to be examined. In reference to these general outlines we have a prevailing and permanent desire. This desire is not only a great help in giving quickness and strength to the laws of association, but exercises also a very considerable indirect influence in giving an appropriate character to the thoughts which are suggested by those laws Hence the great body of the propositions which are at such times brought up, will

be found to have a greater or less reference to the general subject. These are all very rapidly compared by the mind with those outlines in regard to which its feelings of desire are exercised, or with what we usually term the point to be proved. Here the mind, in the exercise of that susceptibility of feelings of relation which we have already seen it to possess, immediately discovers the suitableness or want of suitableness, the agreement or want of agreement, of the propositions presented to it, to the general subject. This perception of agreement or disagreement, which is one of those relative feelings of which the mind is, from its very nature, held to be susceptible, exists as an ultimate fact in our mental constitution. All that can profitably be said in relation to it, is the mere statement of the fact, and of the circumstances under which it is found to exist.-Those propositions which are judged by the mind, in the exercise of that capacity which its Creator has given it, to possess a congruity or agreement with the general subject or point to be proyed, are permitted by it to enter in, as continuous parts of the argument. And in this way a series of propositions rises up, all having reference to one ultimate purpose, regular, appropriate, and in their issue laying the foundation of the different degrees of assent. This explanation will apply not only to the supposed argument in the last section, which is an instance of moral reasoning, but will hold good essentially of all other instances, of whatever kind. The difference in the various kinds of reasoning consists less in the mental process than in the nature of the subjects compared together, and in the conditions attending them.

179. Reasoning implies the existence of antecedent or assumed

propositions.

In attempting to give some explanation of the reasoning power, it is to be remarked further, that reasoning, both in its inception and its prosecution, has this characteristic, that it necessarily proceeds, in a great degree, upon assumptions. As every deductive process implies a comparison of propositions, there must, of course, be some propositions given, by the aid of which the comparison is

prosecuted. There must be something assumed as known, by means of which to find out what is unknown. Accordingly, assumed propositions (either those which are known to be true, or, for the purposes of argument, are regarded as such) are always found at the commencement of the series; and they are also introduced frequently in its progress, particularly in Moral reasoning But the propositions which are assumed are not always expressed; especially those which, from the circumstance of their being representative of elementary convictions of the understanding, are denominated PRIMARY TRUTHS.

66

"In every process of reasoning," says Abercrombie, we proceed by founding one step upon another which has gone before it; and when we trace such a process backward, we must arrive at certain truths which are recognised as fundamental, requiring no proof and admitting of none."

§ 180. Further considerations on this subject.

But when we say that reasoning proceeds upon assumptions, it does not necessarily follow that it proceeds upon propositions which are unknown or doubtful. The propositions which are referred to, are assumed in reference to the reasoning power, and not in reference to other sources of knowledge which the understanding possesses besides reasoning. Whatever things are known by Original Suggestion, whatever are known by Consciousness, or by the direct communication of the Senses, or by undoubted Memory or Testimony, as they cannot be made clearer by reasoning, but fully command our belief of themselves, are at once adopted by reasoning into its own processes, and employed as helps in eliciting the remote and unperceived truths which it is in search of. But, as has been intimated, this adoption is not always a formal and acknowledged one, but often silently and by implication. No one would think of formally and repeatedly enunciating, as he advances in an argument, the truth of his own existence or of his personal identity, and not much more would he think of enunciating that every effect has its cause, or that nature is uniform in her operations, or that a combination of means conspiring to a particular end

« 上一頁繼續 »