1808.) 
those which denote an object, without 
any reference to the presence or absence 
of any other object, as man, metal, ox, 
John, George, &c. They ditter from po- 
stéive inasmuch as they do not exclude a 
reference to other objects; thus, father 
includes a reference to child.” 
Here thus, which, from grammatical 
construction, should refer to a positive 
idea, as an exemplification, is meant to 
exemplify the immediately preceding 
member, where the idea is negative. 
Page 27, rv. 48.—‘ Concomitantly sig- 
nified.” “Phis harsh phrase appears more 
than once in the work. i 
Page 37, &c.—* Soalms; so the word 
thelt.” This word so, appears to bea 
favourite. See pages, 97, 98, &c. &c. 
Page 45, r. 458.—We find an epithet 
which we have not yet adopted—/eadless 
reports, The reports passing with us, 
have the advantage of those circulated, 
it seems, on the other side of the water: 
they have very often neither head, nor 
body, nor form, nor shape, nor sub- 
stance. 
Not to tire your patience, Sir, I lay 
down my critical pen, having, I presume, 
made out my case. I would not, if I 
could, detract from the celebrity Dr. 
Kirwan has acquired, and no doubt just- 
ly,-in the chemical world: butif D’Alem- 
bert, Condorcet, Proclus, Fatio (see Pre- 
face, p. iv.), failed, because they were 
mathematicians; it may be conjectured 
that Dr. K. has failed because he is 
a chemist. If it be dithcult tor one 
versed in that very science which, of all 
others, enables us to reason closely, to 
throw light on these subjects, hitle can it 
be expected that one who has been in- 
volved in the sivoke of the laboratory, 
svould be able e fumo lucem afferre. 
Before I conclude, 1 shall notice parts 
of his work, which convey information, 
I believe not generally known, or not al- 
ways attended to. In his statement of 
propositions, he has shewn very clearly 
that the words contrary and contradic- 
tory are not synonymous, though they ; 
are often used indiscriminately, If a 
man were to advance that “ all wars are 
just,” and another to assert, that “no 
war is just,” the latter would be consi- 
dered as a contradiction; but rt appears 
(see p. 51 to 88) that it would be only 
contrary. ‘!o make the assertion con- 
tradictory, it should be, “ one war is 
just.” Yhe first is contrary, because it 
denies more than is necessary. 
The part of Dr. Kirwav’s performance 
which has given me the greatest satisfac- 
' Remarkson Dr. Kirwan’s “ Logick.” 
409 
tion, is his vindication of, the syllogistic 
mode of reasoning. (See p. 509, r. 959, 
vol, IT.) 
Mr. Locke says, “ that if we observe 
the actions of our own minds, we shall 
find that we reason most clearly when 
we only observe the connection of the 
proof, without reducing our thoughts to 
any rule of syllogism; and therefore we 
may seé many men who reason most 
justly, who kvow not how to make a syl- 
lugism.” T have here copied the passage 
PPO Dry Raye 
** But (says Dr. K. very justly), to 
perceive the fallacy of this objection, it 
is only necessary te observe, that a syllo- 
gism is nothing more than a statement of 
two propositions, from which a third may 
be inferred.” He then goes on to shew 
that the connection between them is in 
the mind, though not expressed in words, 
‘“‘ But the great use of syllogistic rules 
(continues he), 1s not to enable men to 
reason justly, but to detect errors in rea- 
soning.” ‘ How often do they [nen] 
reason inaccurately, without perceiving 
that they do so, by not reducing their 
opinions to the syllogistic form? Thus, 
most nations are persuaded that they 
should give implicit credit to the opini- 
ons of their ancestors. If you ask them 
whether they should believe them, whe- 
ther true or false? many will answer 
(though with some hesitation, as I have 
often observed), that they believe them, 
because they are true. Now, a single 
syllogism will discover the weakness of 
this ground of belief:— 
“ ‘These are the opimons of our anrese 
tors ; 
‘ Ali the opinions of our ancestors are 
true 5 : 
“ ‘Therefore these are true.” 
Dr. K. has, in several parts of his 
work, acknowledged his obligations to 
French writers. Condillac and Condor- 
cet are often quoted. Would our meta- 
physical and dramatic writers be equally 
candid, how many of our best authors 
would fall in the general estimation ! 
Among the various pursuits of literature, 
would it not be an-act of justice to our 
contemporaries, and to posterity, were 4 
few of our literati to attempt to trace 
every apparently new and ingenious idea 
to its true source—to confront, before 
the great republic of letters, the stealer 
and the borrower, together with the orip 
ginal proprietor? 
Your's, &c, 
April 8, 1808, A.M. 
- To 
