Scribd
Upload
155 views

Judgment

This document defines key logical terms and concepts. It begins by defining definition, terms, genus and specific difference. It then discusses judgment, propositions, and the four types of propositions based on subject and predicate quantity and quality. Distribution of terms is explained, noting how propositions can be distributed. Immediate inferences are then outlined, including conversion, obversion, and contraposition. The document concludes by defining the four types of oppositions between propositions: contradiction, contrariety, subcontraries, and subalternation.

Uploaded by

Jecko Guerrero Bello
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
155 views

Judgment

This document defines key logical terms and concepts. It begins by defining definition, terms, genus and specific difference. It then discusses judgment, propositions, and the four types of propositions based on subject and predicate quantity and quality. Distribution of terms is explained, noting how propositions can be distributed. Immediate inferences are then outlined, including conversion, obversion, and contraposition. The document concludes by defining the four types of oppositions between propositions: contradiction, contrariety, subcontraries, and subalternation.

Uploaded by

Jecko Guerrero Bello
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

Definition of Terms

There are two parts in a definition


1. The term being defined (Definiendum)
2. The defining term (Definiens)
Ex. [Man]1 is a [rational animal]2
Note: As we have learned in the predicables, a definition is consists
of
genus + specific difference = species
Some guidelines in defining effectively:
1. It should be coextensive: not too broad, not too narrow
2. Clear, literal and brief
3. Not negative or circular: do not use the word being defined in the
definition itself; you cannot really define a thing for what it is not.
THE SECOND ACT OF THE MIND
JUDGMENT
Ascertaining the compatibility of two terms
Thus, in logic, we are only judging whether the two terms are compatible or
not. This is the time when we can affirm/deny or say when something is true
or false.
Proposition is the logical expression of the product of judgment
-

Propositions are always in declarative form


o Ex. All S is P
3 Parts:
1. Subject S
2. Predicate P
3. copula is [verb]

Note: the concern in judgment is merely the affirmation or negation


of the presence of relationship between two terms. Thus, the linking verbs
are the only appreciable verbs.
The negation or affirmation of the presence of relationship is what we call
the QUALITY of the proposition. This is expressed as:
Affirmative: is, are
Negative: is not, are not
We have seen in terms that terms can be quantified (universal, particular and
singular). However, in judgments, two things should be considered:
1.) Only the subject of the proposition is quantifiable
2.) All singular terms are deemed to be universal
Out of these considerations, we can now deduce four (4) propositions:

Universal Subject + Affirmative relation = (A) proposition: All S


is P
Universal Subject + Negative relation

= (E) proposition: All S

is not P
Particular Subject + Affirmative relation = (I) proposition:
Some S are P
Particular Subject + Negative relation
= (O) proposition:
Some S are not P
Note: For clarity and aesthetic purposes, in an (E) proposition, let us
express it as No S is P rather than All S is not P. In (O) proposition,
rather than Some S are not P, it is better expressed as Not all S are P.
This is because the former brings with it various possibilities of
interpretations.
Note further: The quantity of the predicate can only be detected
through the copula depending on what type of proposition, this we will
see in distribution of terms.
Distribution of Terms
Whether the subject and the predicate are distributed (How far is the extent of our
knowledge of a term be it the subject or predicate)?
A subject is universal, predicate is particular
E subject is universal, predicate is universal
I subject is particular, predicate is particular
O subject is particular, predicate is universal
*Refer to the Eulers circles of the propositions. It is in those illustrations where you
can see the quantity of the predicate.
Note: The distribution of terms is one of most crucial points in formal
logic. It will be the basis of detecting the errors in different arguments.
As a general rule, if given a proposition, no change shall be
employed in the distribution of terms. Any change would result to
error.
Immediate Inferences
Eduction: Valid changes in a proposition
To better facilitate eduction, it is helpful to bracket (excluding even the
quantifier) the subject and predicate of the proposition. In other words,
it necessitates you to first and foremost, locate the subject and
predicate of the proposition. It is not necessary that the subject and
predicate be a single word. It can be considered as a subject or

predicate so long as it presents a single unified idea expressed as


term.
Ex. S is P = [S] is [P]
1.) Conversion: Interchange the position of the subject and predicate
A: All [S] is [P] Some [P] are [S] (I)
Reason: You will see in the Eulers circle that to convert A to A is
erroneous for it will change the distribution of terms. If one changes
the distribution of terms, one is already talking beyond the bounds of
what was given.
All conversions of A propositions are I propositions
Note: Through this, we can see that change in the distribution of
terms can only be appreciated when it is a change from a universal
quantity towards a particular quantity; particular to universal movement
is erroneous. For obvious reasons, when we speak of a universal term, we
are already speaking of all references included in it. Whilst when we speak
of particular, we can never ascertain the applicability of it to a general or
universal term.
O: No Conversion for O propositions
Ex. Some mortals are not men Some men are not mortals
[Note: Distribution]
Note further: (E) and (I) propositions are easily converted for it does
not affect the reference or distribution of terms as depicted very well in
the Eulers circle.
The Valid Conversions are:
EE
AI
I I
EO
2.) Obvert: negate the copula; negate the predicate
Basis: Double negation results to a positive result
A: All [S] is [P] All S is not non-P (E) / No S is non-P (E)
E: No S is P No S is not non-P (A) / All S is non-P (A)
I: Some S are P Some S are not non-P (O) / Not all S are non-P (O)
O: Not all S are P Not all S are not non-P (I) / Some S are non-P (I)
Therefore, valid obversions are: A E; E A; I O; O I

3.)Contraposition

3 steps
1.) Obvert (the given proposition)
2.) Convert (the result of number 1)
3.) Obvert (the result of number 2)
A: All S is P
1.) All S is not non-P / No S is non-P (E)
2.) All non-P is not S/ No non-P is S (E)
3.) No non-P is not S / All non-P is non-S (A)
E: No S is P
1. No S is not non-P / All S is non-P (A)
2. Some non-P is S (I)
3. Some non-P is not non-S / Not all non-P is non-S (O)
I: Some S are P
1. Some S are not non-P / Not all S are non-P (O)
2. Not all S are non-P = No conversion for O proposition
Note: If the process of contraposition is not completed, it is
called partial contraposition; if completed, complete
contraposition.
O: Not all S are P
1. Not all S are not non-P / Some S are non-P (I)
2. Some non-P are S (I)
3. Some non-P are not non-S / Not all non-P are non-S (O)
Point of great consideration: Give all of this, it is but necessary therefore that we
reduce all propositions to S is P form to facilitate better Eduction. What is required
only from the form of propositions is that it should be in declarative form thus,
whether linking verb or not, it should be considered. Given that it is not in the S is
P form, the following should be done:
Ex: X grows Y = [X] is [that which grows Y].
X is large = [X] is [that which is large].
In other words, one should bring out the copula is, are, are not, is not. REDUCE THE
PROPOSITION TO THE FOUR TYPES (FORMS) OF PROPOSITIONS
OPPOSITIONS
Whether two propositions containing the same subject and predicate can be true at
the same time?
Four Types:
1. Contradiction: When C is true, B is automatically false
4

a. Between (A) and (O) proposition; (E) and (I) proposition


2. Contrariety: cannot both be true, but they can both be false
a. Between (A) and (E)
3. Subcontraries: Can both be true but not be false
a. Between (I) and (E)
4. Subalternation: Between (A) and (I); between (E) and (O)

*Refer to the attached table and illustration.

You might also like