THE DOCTRINE OF REDUCTION 355 



tion or of conversion or reduction ad impossibile. It must always be remem 

 bered that the character of an argument is determined not by the form into 

 which it is thrown in words, but by that which it assumes in our thought. This 

 is our justification for recognizing the figures as distinct types. In particular 

 cases, a syllogism may not belong to the figure into which it has been verbally 

 compelled ; in others it may be possible with the same terms to construct syl 

 logisms in more than one figure ; but then there must be a real movement of 

 thought in the process of conversion by which the change is effected. The 

 theory of syllogisms ought not to be regarded as a lesson in the manipulation 

 of symbols and the application of formulae. What we have to look to is the 

 character of the reasoning involved in it, and to that end we need to realize 

 our symbols and see how the varying character of our terms, and of the rela 

 tions between them in judgment, affects the inference. If our inquiry has done 

 anything to bring this lesson home, its length and intricacy will not have been 

 altogether vain.&quot; 



WELTON, Logic, bk. iv., chaps, iii. and iv. KEYNES, Formal Logic^ pt. 

 Hi., chap. iii. JOSEPH, Logic, chaps, xiii. and xiv. JOYCE, Logic, pp. 181 

 sqq. MELLONE, op. cit., pp. 179 sqq. 



