Second Discourse: Containing a Reply to the Principal Objections which have been made against this Logic
THOSE who have determined to make their works public, ought, at the same time, to calculate on having as many judges as readers; and this condition they should not consider either unjust or onerous. For if they are really disinterested, they ought, in making their works public, to have abandoned all property in them, and to consider them henceforth with the same indifference as they would those of strangers. The only right which they can legitimately reserve to themselves, is that of correcting what may be defective, for which purpose these different criticisms which are made on books, are extremely serviceable; for they are always useful when they are just, and do no harm when they are unjust, since we are not obliged to follow them.
Prudence would nevertheless dictate that we should often yield to those judgments which do not appear to us just; since, though we may not see any fault in that which is objected to, we may see, at least, that it is not adapted to the minds of those who complain of it. It is doubtless better, when we are able to do so without falling into a greater inconvenience, to choose a medium so just, that, in pleasing judicious persons, we do not displease those who have a judgment less exact, since we ought not to suppose that we shall have none but intelligent and able readers.
Thus, it were to be desired that the first editions of books be considered only as unfinished essays, which are submitted by their authors to men of letters, in order to obtain their opinions respecting them; and that then, with the different views which these different opinions have given them, they should go through the whole again, in order to exhibit their works in the most perfect form to which they can bring them. This is the course which we should have liked much to have followed in the Second Edition of this Logic, if we had heard more of what was said in the world about the First. We have, nevertheless, done what we could, and have added, suppressed, and corrected many things, in obedience to the thoughts of those who have had the goodness to let us know what they discerned faulty in it.
And, in the first place,—As to the language, we have followed almost entirely the advice of two persons, who have taken the trouble to point out some defects which had slipped into the work through negligence; and certain expressions, which they considered were not sanctioned by good usage. And we have failed to comply with their views, only when, on consulting others, we found that opinions were divided, in which case we thought we might be allowed to take a free course.
In relation to things, there will be found more additions, than either alterations or retrenchments, since we were less acquainted with what was objected to in this respect. It is true, nevertheless, that we knew of some general objections, which were made against this book, but we did not think it right to dwell upon these, since we were persuaded that those even who made them, would be easily satisfied, when we had pointed out to them the design which we had in view in those things of which they complain. Hence, it will be useful, here, to reply to the chief of these objections.
We have found some persons who are dissatisfied with the title, The art of thinking, instead of which they would have us put, The art of reasoning well. But we request these objectors to consider, that, since the end of logic is to give rules for all the operations of the mind, and thus as well for simple ideas as for judgment and reasonings, there was scarcely any other word which included all these operations; and the word thought certainly comprehends them all; for simple ideas are thoughts, judgments are thoughts, and reasonings are thoughts. It is true that we might have said, The art of thinking well, but this addition was not necessary, since it was already sufficiently indicated by the word art, which signifies, of itself, a method of doing something well, as Aristotle himself remarks. Hence it is, that it is enough to say, the art of painting, the art of reckoning, because it is supposed that there is no need of art in order to paint ill, or reckon wrongly.
Another objection, much more weighty, has been made against the multitude of things, taken from different sciences, which is to be found in this Logic. This objection it is necessary to examine with more care, since it attacks the design of the whole work; and thus gives us an opportunity of explaining that design. " To what end,” it is asked, " is all this medley of Rhetoric, Ethics, Physics, Metaphysics, and Geometry? When we expect to find logical precepts, we are suddenly transported to the highest sciences, while the author knows not whether we understand them or no. Ought he not to suppose, on the contrary, that if we had already all these knowledges, we should have no need of this Logic? And, would it not have been better for him, to have given us one quite simple and plain, in which the rules should have been explained by examples taken from common things, than to have embarrassed it with so many matters, that it is quite stifled? "
But those who reason thus, do not sufficiently consider that a book can scarcely have a greater defect, than that, of not being read, since it can only benefit those who read it; and that thus everything which helps to make a book read, contributes also to its usefulness. Now, it is certain, that if we had followed their advice, and had made a logic altogether barren (with the ordinary examples, of an animal and a horse), we should only have added to the number of those of which the world is already full, and which are not read. Whereas, it is just that collection of different things which has given this work such a run, and caused it to be read with less distaste than is felt in reading others.
This was not, however, the principal design we had in this collection,—to induce all the world to read it, by rendering it more diverting than the common logics. We maintain, rather, that we have followed a course the most natural, and the most advantageous for illustrating this art, in remedying, as far as possible, an inconvenience which had rendered the study of it almost useless.
For experience shows that, of a thousand young men who learn logic, there are not ten who remember anything of it six months after they have finished their course. Now the true cause of this oblivion, this ignorance, which is so common, appears to be,—that all the subjects which are treated of in logic, being in themselves very abstract, and very far removed from common use, are still connected with examples of no interest, and of which we never speak elsewhere. Thus the mind, which had attended to the subject with difficulty, having nothing to keep up its attention, easily loses all the ideas, which it had received respecting it, since they are never renewed by practice. Again, since the common examples do not sufficiently make it understood, that this science is applicable to everything useful, the learners are accustomed to restrict logic to logic, without extending it further; whereas, it exists for the very purpose of being an instrument to other sciences. And thus, as they have never seen its true use, they never use it at all, and are willing enough even to lay it aside as an unworthy and useless knowledge. We believed, therefore, that the best remedy of this evil was, not to separate logic, so much as is commonly done, from other sciences, for whose service it is intended; but, by means of examples, to join it in such a manner to solid knowledges, that the rules and the practice might be seen at the same time; to the end that we might learn to judge of these sciences by logic, and to retain logic by means of these sciences. Thus this diversity is so far from stifling the precepts, that nothing can contribute more towards making them well understood, and easily retained; since they are in themselves too subtle to make an impression on the mind, unless they are attached to something more interesting and more sensuous.
In order to render this collection the more useful, we have not borrowed the examples from these sciences at random; but have chosen from them, the most important points, and such as might best serve as rules and principles for the discovery of truth in other matters which we were not able to discuss.
For example, in relation to rhetoric, we considered that the help which we were able to obtain from it, in finding thoughts, expressions, and embellishments, was not very considerable. The mind furnishes thoughts enough, custom gives forms of expression, and as for figures and ornament, we have always more than enough of these. Thus its whole use almost consists in preserving us from certain bad ways of writing and speaking, and especially from an artificial and rhetorical style, which is the greatest of all vices. Now there will be found, perhaps, in this Logic, as much that is useful for knowing and avoiding these defects as in the books which treat expressly of that subject. The last Chapter of the First Part, in showing the nature of a figurative style, teaches, at the same time, the use which ought to be made of it, and discovers the true rules by which we ought to distinguish good and bad figures. That in which we treat of places in general, will much help to restrain the superfluous abundance of common thoughts. The article where we speak of the bad reasonings which eloquence insensibly begets, in teaching that we should never consider that which is false as beautiful, propounds, in passing, one of the most important rules of true rhetoric, and one which will, more than all others, form the mind to a manner of writing, simple, natural, and judicious. Finally, what we have said in the same chapter of the care which ought to be taken not to excite the malignity of those whom we address, teaches us to avoid a very great number of defects, which are so much the more dangerous, as they are difficult to detect.
In relation to morals, the main subject treated of did not permit us to insert much. I believe, however, that it will be allowed, that what is found in the chapter on false ideas of good and evil, in the First Part, and that which treats of the wrong reasonings which are common in civil life, is of very wide application, and may help to make us acquainted with a great part of the errors of mankind.
In metaphysics, there is nothing more important than the origin of our ideas,—the separation of spiritual ideas from corporeal images,—the distinction between mind and body, and the evidences of the soul’s immortality, founded on this distinction; and these points, it will be seen, are treated of very fully in the First and Fourth parts.
There will be found, also, in different places, the greater part of the general principles of physics, which are very easily apprehended; and sufficient light may be obtained from what is said of ponderosity, of sensible qualities, of the operations of sense, of magnetic powers, of occult virtues, and of substantial forms, to correct a multitude of false ideas, which the prejudices of youth have left in our minds; not that we shall thus be enabled to dispense with the more careful study of all these things in the books which treat expressly of them, but we considered that there were many persons not devoted to the study of theology (for which it is necessary to know minutely the philosophy of the schools, which is, as it were, its language), for whom a more general knowledge of these sciences might suffice. Now, although there will not be found in this book all that it is necessary for us to know in relation to these subjects, we may nevertheless say, with truth, that there will be found almost all that it is needful for us to remember.
The objection, that there are some of the examples which are not sufficiently adapted to the intelligence of beginners, is true only in relation to the geometrical examples; for, as to the others, they may be understood by all who have any expansion of mind, though they had never learnt anything of philosophy; and perhaps, indeed, they will be more readily understood by those who have as yet no prejudices, than by those who have their minds filled with the maxims of the common philosophy. In relation to the examples from geometry, it is true that they will not be understood by every one; for we believe that they will scarcely ever be found, except in express and separate discussions, which may easily be passed over, or in matters clear enough of themselves, or sufficiently illustrated by other examples, to render those taken from geometry unnecessary. Again, if the places in which these are employed be examined, it will be seen that it would have been very difficult to find others equally suitable, since scarcely any where but in this science can we obtain ideas which are quite pure, and propositions which are incontestible. For example, we have said, in speaking of reciprocal properties, that it was one of rectangled triangles, that the square of the hypothenuse is equal to the square of the sides. This is clear and certain to those who understand it, and those who do not understand it may suppose it, and comprehend none the less the theory to which this example is applied. But if we had determined to employ the example which is commonly used—risibility—which is said to be a property of man, we should have advanced a thing obscure enough, and very doubtful; for, if we understand by the word risibility the power of making such a grimace as is made in laughing, we do not see why brutes may not be trained to make such a grimace, and perhaps, indeed, there are some who do so. But if we include in this word, not only the change which laughing makes in the countenance, but also the intelligence which accompanies and produces it, and thus understand, by risibility, the power of laughing with intelligence,—all the actions of man ought, in the same way, to be considered reciprocal properties, there being none of them which are not peculiar to man alone, when connected with intelligence. Thus we may say that it is the property of man to walk, to drink, to eat, since it is man only who walks, drinks, and eats with intelligence. Provided we extend it thus, we shall be in no want of examples of properties;
but still these will not be certain to the minds of those who attribute intelligence to truth, and who may, therefore, equally well attribute to them laughing with intelligence, whereas the example which we have employed is certain to the minds of all men.
In the same way, we wished to show, in another place, that there are some corporeal things which we conceive after a spiritual manner, and without imagining them; and for this purpose, we referred, as an example, to a figure of a thousand angles, which we conceive clearly by the mind, although we are not able to form any distinct image which represents its properties; and we said, in passing, that one of the properties of that figure was, that all its angles were equal to 1996 right angles. It is clear that this example proves very well what we wished to show in that place.
It only remains for us to answer a more odious objection, which some persons have founded on the examples of imperfect definitions and bad reasonings, which we have taken from Aristotle, and which appear to them to be the offspring of a secret desire to degrade that philosopher. But they would never have formed a judgment so inequitable, had they sufficiently considered the true rules which ought to be regarded in citing examples of faults, and which we have had in view in quoting Aristotle.
In the first place, experience shows that the greater part of the examples commonly given are of little use, and remain but for a short time in the mind, as they are formed at pleasure, and are so plain and palpable, that it is scarcely possible to fall into them.
It is, therefore, more serviceable, in order to make us remember what is said of these defects, and to avoid them, to choose real examples, taken from some author of celebrity, whose reputation may arouse us to be more on our guard against such mistakes, seeing that the greatest men may commit them.
Again, as our aim ought to be to render all that we have written as useful as possible, we ought to endeavour to select examples of faults which it is important not to be ignorant of; for it would be very useless to burden the memory with all the reveries of Fludd, of Van Helmont, and of Paracelsus. It is better, therefore, to seek for examples in the works of authors so celebrated that we are in some sort obliged to know them, even to their defects.
Now all this is found in perfection in Aristotle; for nothing can tend more powerfully to avoid a fault than showing that so great a mind has fallen into it; and his philosophy has become so celebrated by the great number of persons of repute who have embraced it, that we are under the necessity of knowing even the defects which it may have. Thus, as we judged it very useful for those who might read this book to learn, in passing, various points of that philosophy, and that, nevertheless, was not at all useful to be deceived, we have referred to these in order to explain them; and we have indicated, by the way, any defects which might be found in them, in order to prevent any from being deceived.
It was not, therefore, to degrade Aristotle, but, on the contrary, to do him as much honour as possible, in those things wherein we differed from his opinion, that we took these examples from his works; and it is plain that the points which we have criticised are of very little importance, and do not affect the foundation of his philosophy, which we had no intention whatever of assailing. And if we have not referred to those many excellent things which are to be found everywhere in the books of Aristotle, it is because no occasion offered for these, in the course of our work; but if we had found occasion, we should have introduced them with pleasure, and should not have failed to give him the just praises which he merits. For it is certain that Aristotle had, in truth, a very vast and comprehensive mind, which discovers in the subjects of which he treats a great number of connections and consequences; and hence he has been very successful in what he has said of the passions in the Second Book of his Rhetoric. There are also many beautiful things in his books of Politics and of Ethics, in the Problems, and in the History of Animals. And whatever confusion may be found in his Analytics, it must be confessed, nevertheless, that almost all that we know of the rules of logic is taken thence; so that there is, in fact, no author from whom we have borrowed more in this Logic than from Aristotle.
It is true that his Physics appears to be the least perfect of his works, as it was that which was for the longest time condemned and prohibited by the church, as a learned author has shown, in a book written expressly for this purpose; but still the principal defect to be found in this part of his work is, not that it is false, but, on the contrary, that it is too true, and that it teaches us only things of which it is impossible to be ignorant. But who can doubt that all things are composed of matter, and a certain form of that matter? Who can doubt that matter, in order to acquire a new manner and a new form, needs something which it had not before,—that is to say, that it had the privation of it? And, in fine, who can doubt, those other metaphysical principles, which all depend on form—that matter alone does nothing—that there are place, movements, faculties? But after we have learned all these things, we do not seem to have learned anything new, or to be at all better able to give an account of any of the effects in nature.
If any are to be found who maintain that it is not lawful for us to declare that we are not of Aristotle’s opinion, it will be easy to show them that this scrupulousness is very unreasonable; for, if we ought to yield deference to any philosophers, this can only be for two reasons, either on account of the truth which they maintained, or on account of the opinion of the men who have supported them. In regard to the truth, they ought always to be respected when they have reason on their side; but the truth can never oblige us to respect falsehood in any man, be he who he may. With regard to the agreement of men, and the approval of a philosopher, it is certain that it also merits some respect, and that it would be imprudent to oppose it, without using great precautions; and the reason of this is, that in attacking what is received by all the world, we expose ourselves to the charge of presumption by supposing that we have more light than others; but when the world is divided with regard to the opinions of an author, and many men of reputation on both sides, we are not bound to this reserve, and we may freely declare what we approve, and what we do not approve, in those books in relation to which men of letters are divided, because, in this case, we do not so much prefer our own opinion to that of this author, and those who support him, as arrange ourselves on the side of those who are opposed to him on this point.
Author’s note: M. de Launoi, in his book, De Varia Aristotelis Fortuna.
This is properly the state in which we now find the philosophy of Aristotle. For, having had divers fortunes,—being at one time generally rejected, and at another generally approved,—it is now reduced to a state which is a medium between these extremes, being maintained by many learned men, while it is attacked by others of equal reputation. Works are continually and freely written in France, in England, in Holland, and in Germany, for and against the philosophy of Aristotle. The conferences at Paris are divided, as well as the books, and no one offends now by declaring himself against him. The most celebrated philosophers are bound no longer to the slavery of receiving blindly whatever they find in his books; and there are even opinions of his which are generally abandoned, for where is the physician now who would undertake to maintain that the nerves come from the heart, as Aristotle believed, since anatomy has clearly proved that they have their origin from the brain?—whence Saint Augustine says, " Qui ex puncto cerebri et quasi centra sensus omnes quinaria distributione diffudit” And where is the philosopher who is hardy enough to affirm that the swiftness of heavy things increases in the same ratio as their weight, since there is no one now who may not disprove this doctrine of Aristotle’s by letting fall from a high place very unequal weights, in the swiftness of which, nevertheless, there will be remarked very little difference?
No violent states are commonly of long duration, and all extremes are violent. It is very hard to condemn Aristotle generally, as was formerly done, and it is a very great constraint to be obliged to believe and approve everything he has written, and to take him as the test of truth in all philosophical opinions, which was afterwards done. Men cannot long endure such constraint, and return insensibly to the possession of their natural and rational freedom, which consists in receiving that which is judged to be true, and rejecting that which is judged to be false. For there is nothing contrary to reason in yielding to authority in those sciences which, treating of things which are above reason, ought to follow another light.—and this can only be that of Divine authority; but there is no ground whatever in human sciences, which profess to be founded only on reason, for being enslaved by authority contrary to reason. The rule which we have followed in speaking of the opinions of philosophers, both ancient and modern, is this,—we have considered truth alone in both, without espousing, generally, the opinions of any one in particular, and also without declaring ourselves generally against any one. So that all that ought to be inferred, when we reject the opinion either of Aristotle or of another, is, that we do not agree with this author in that particular; it cannot be at all inferred that we do not do so in other points, much less that we have any aversion to him, or any desire to degrade him. We believe that this disposition will be approved of by all impartial persons, and that there will be found, through the whole of this work, only a sincere desire of contributing to public utility, as far as we may be able to do so in a work of this nature, without any prejudice or partiality.