PROPOSITIONS. 



51 



pointed out how many errors in the 

 received systems of philosophy it has 

 had to answer for. It has indeed 

 misled the modems scarcely less than 

 the ancients, though their mistakes, 

 because our understandings are not 

 yet so completely emancipated from 

 their influence, do not appear equally 

 irrational. 



We shall now briefly review the 

 principal distinctions which exist 

 among propositions, and the technical 

 terms most commonly in use to ex- 

 press those distinctions. 



§ 2. A proposition being a portion 

 of discourse in which something is 

 affirmed or denied of something, the 

 first division of propositions is into 

 affirmative and negative. An affir- 

 mative proposition is that in which 

 the predicate is affirmed of the subject ; 

 as, Caesar is dead. A negative pro- 

 position is that in which the predicate 

 is denied of the subject ; as, Caesar is 

 not dead. The copula, in this last 

 species of proposition, consists of the 

 words is not, which are the sign of 

 negation ; is being the sign of affir- 

 mation. 



Some logicians, among whom may 

 be mentioned Hobbes, state this dis- 

 tinction differently ; they recognise 

 only one form of copula, is, and attach 

 the negative sign to the predicate. 

 " Caesar is dead," and " Caesar is not 

 dead," according to these writers, are 

 propositions agreeing not in the sub- 

 ject and predicate, but in the subject 

 only. They do not consider " dead," 

 but " not dead," to be the predicate of 

 the second proposition, and they ac- 

 cordingly define a negative proposition 

 to be one in which the predicate is a 

 negative name. The point, though 

 not of much practical moment, de- 

 serves notice as an example (not un- 

 frequent in logic) where by means of 

 an apparent simplification, but which 

 is merely verbal, matters are made 

 more complex than before. The notion 

 of these writers was, that they could 

 get rid of the distinction between 

 affirming and denying, by treating 



every case of denying as the affirming 

 of a negative name. But what is 

 meant by a negative name ? A name 

 expressive of the absence of an attri- 

 bute. So that when we affirm a nega- 

 tive name, what we are really predi- 

 cating is absence and not presence ; 

 we are asserting not that anything is, 

 but that something is not ; to express 

 which operation no word seems so 

 proper as the word denying. The 

 fundamental distinction is between a 

 fact and the non-existence of that 

 fact ; between seeing something and 

 not seeing it, between Caesar's being 

 dead and his not being dead ; and if 

 this were a merely verbal distinction, 

 the generalization which brings both 

 within the same form of assertion 

 would be a real simplification : the 

 distinction, however, being real, and 

 in the facts, it is the generalization 

 confounding the distinction that is 

 merely verbal ; and tends to obscure 

 the subject, by treating the difference 

 between two kinds of truths as if it 

 were only a difference between two 

 kinds of words. To put things to- 

 gether, and to put them or keep them 

 asunder, will remain different opera- 

 tions, whatever tricks we may play 

 with language. 



A remark of a similar nature may 

 be applied to most of those distinc- 

 tions among propositions which are 

 said to have reference to their mo- 

 dality ; as, difference of tense or time ; 

 the sun did rise, the sun is rising, the 

 sun will rise. These differences, like 

 that between affirmation and nega- 

 tion, might be glossed over by con- 

 sidering the incident of time as a mere 

 modification of the predicate : thus, 

 The sun is an object having risen, The 

 sun is an object now rising, The sun is 

 an object to rise Tiei'eafter. But the 

 simplification would be merely verbal. 

 Past, present, and futiire, do not con- 

 stitute so many different kinds of 

 rising ; they are designations belong- 

 ing to the event asserted, to the sun's 

 rising to day. They affect, not the 

 predicate, but the applicability of the 

 predicate to the particular subject. 



