can say that the nature and procedure of this intellect is not almost the highest and most interesting subject of study in which we can engage? In vain would any one deny the truth of the favourite aphorism of Sir W. Hamilton

IN THE WORLD THERE IS NOTHING GREAT BUT MAN. IN MAN THERE IS NOTHING GREAT BUT MIND.

LESSON II.

THE THREE PARTS OF LOGICAL DOCTRINE.

It has been explained in the previous lesson that Logic is the Science of Reasoning, or the Science of those Necessary Laws of Thought which must be observed if we are to argue consistently with ourselves and avoid selfcontradiction. Argument or reasoning therefore is the strictly proper subject before us. But the most convenient and usual mode of studying logic is to consider first the component parts of which any argument must be made up. Just as an architect must be acquainted with the materials of a building, or a mechanic with the materials of a machine, before he can pretend to be acquainted with its construction, so the materials and instruments with which we must operate in reasoning are suitably described before we proceed to the actual forms of argument.

If we examine a simple argument such as that given in the last lesson, thus

Iron is a metal,

Every metal is an element,

Therefore Iron is an element,―

we see that it is made up of three statements or assertions, and that each of these contains, besides minor words, two nouns substantive or names of things, and the verb "is." In short, two names, or terms, when connected by a verb, make up an assertion or proposition; and three such propositions make up an argument, called in , this case a syllogism. Hence it is natural and convenient first to describe terms, as the simplest parts; next to proceed to the nature and varieties of propositions constructed out of them, and then we shall be in a position to treat of the syllogism as a whole. Such accordingly are the three parts of logical doctrine.

But though we may say that the three parts of logic are concerned with terms, propositions, and syllogisms, it may be said with equal or greater truth that the acts of mind indicated by those forms of language are the real subject of our consideration. The opinions, or rather perhaps the expressions, of logicians have varied on this point. Archbishop Whately says distinctly that logic is entirely conversant about language; Sir W. Hamilton, Mr Mansel, and most other logicians treat it as concerned with the acts or states of mind indicated by the words; while Mr J. S. Mill goes back to the things themselves concerning which we argue. Is the subject of logic, then, language, thought, or objects? The simplest and truest answer is to say that it treats in a certain sense of all three. Inasmuch as no reasoning process can be explained or communicated to another person without words, we are practically limited to such reasoning as is reduced to the form of language. Hence we shall always be concerned with words, but only so far as they are the instruments for recording and referring to our thoughts. The grammarian also treats of language, but he treats it as language merely, and his science terminates with the description and explanation of the forms, varieties, and

relations of words. Logic also treats of language, but only as the necessary index to the action of mind.

Again, so long as we think correctly we must think of things as they are; the state of mind within us must correspond with the state of things without us whenever an opportunity arises for comparing them. It is impossible and inconceivable that iron should prove not to be an elementary substance, if it be a metal, and every metal be an element. We cannot suppose, and there is no reason to suppose, that by the constitution of the mind we are obliged to think of things differently from the manner in which they are. If then we may assume that things really agree or differ according as by correct logical thought we are induced to believe they will, it does not seem that the views of the logicians named are irreconcileable. We treat of things so far as they are the objects of thought, and we treat of language so far as it is the embodiment of thought. If the reader will bear this explanation in mind, he will be saved from some perplexity when he proceeds to read different works on logic, and finds them to vary exceedingly in the mode of treatment, or at least of expression.

If, when reduced to language, there be three parts of logic, terms, propositions, and syllogisms, there must be as many different kinds of thought or operations of mind. These are usually called

1. Simple apprehension.

2. Judgment.

3. Reasoning or discourse.

The first of these, Simple Apprehension, is the act of mind by which we merely become aware of something, or have a notion, idea, or impression of it brought into the mind. The adjective simple means apart from other things, and apprehension the taking hold by the mind. Thus the name or term Iron instantaneously makes the

mind think of a strong and very useful metal, but does not tell us anything about it, or compare it with any thing else. The words sun, Jupiter, Sirius, St Paul's Cathedral, are also terms which call up into the mind certain well-known objects, which dwell in our recollection even when they are not present to our senses. In fact, the use of a term, such as those given as examples, is merely as a substitute for the exhibition of the actual things named.

Judgment is a different action of mind, and consists in comparing together two notions or ideas of objects derived from simple apprehension, so as to ascertain whether they agree or differ. It is evident, therefore, that we cannot judge or compare unless we are conscious of two things or have the notions of two things in the mind at the same time. Thus if I compare Jupiter and Sirius I first simply apprehend each of them; but bringing them into comparison I observe that they agree in being small, bright, shining bodies, which rise and set and move round the heavens with apparently equal speed. By minute examination, however, I notice that Sirius gives a twinkling or intermittent light, whereas Jupiter shines steadily. More prolonged observation shews that Ju piter and Sirius do not really move with equal and regular speed, but that the former changes its position upon the heavens from night to night in no very simple manner. If the comparison be extended to others of the heavenly bodies which are apprehended or seen at the same time, I shall find that there are a multitude of stars which agree with Sirius in giving a twinkling light and in remaining perfectly fixed in relative position to each other, whereas two or three other bodies may be seen which resemble Jupiter in giving a steady light, and also in changing their place from night to night among the fixed stars. I have now by the action of judgment formed in my mind the general notion of fixed stars, by

bringing together mentally a number of objects which agree; while from several other objects I have formed the general notion of planets. Comparing the two general notions together, I find that they do not possess the same qualities or appearances, which I state in the proposition, "Planets are not fixed stars."

I have introduced the expression "General Notion" as if the reader were fully acquainted with it. But though philosophers have for more than two thousand years constantly used the expressions, general notion, idea, conception, concept, &c., they have never succeeded in agreeing exactly as to the meaning of the terms. One class of philosophers called Nominalists say that it is all a matter of names, and that when we join together Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Venus, &c., and call them planets, the common name is the bond between them in our minds. Others, called Realists, have asserted that besides these particular planets there really is something which combines the properties common to them all without any of the differences of size, colour, or motion which distinguish them. Every one allows in the present day however that nothing can physically exist corresponding to a general notion, because it must exist here or there, of this size or of that size, and therefore it would be one particular planet, and not any planet whatever. The Nominalists, too, seem equally wrong, because language, to be of any use, must denote something, and must correspond, as we have seen, to acts of mind. If then proper names raise up in our minds the images of particular things, like the sun, Jupiter, &c., general names should raise up general notions.

The true opinion seems to be that of the philosophers called Conceptualists, who say that the general notion is the knowledge in the mind of the common properties or resemblances of the things embraced under