The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Introductory Note.
• Book I.
• Chap. I.: Whether a Demonstrative Science Exists
• Chap. II.: What Knowing Is, What Demonstration Is, and of What It Consists
• Chap. III.: A Refutation of the Error Into Which Some Have Fallen Concerning Science and Demonstration
• Chap. IV.: The Meaning of ‘distributive,’ ‘essential,’ ‘universal’
• Chap. V.: From What Causes Mistakes Arise With Regard to the Discovery of the Universal. How They May Be Avoided
• Chap. VI.: Demonstration Is Founded On Necessary and Essential Principles
• Chap. VII.: The Premises and the Conclusion of a Demonstration Must Belong to the Same Genus
• Chap. VIII.: Demonstration Is Concerned Only With What Is Eternal
• Chap. IX.: Demonstration Is Founded Not On General, But On Special and Indemonstrable Principles; Nor Is It Easy to Know Whether One Really Possesses Knowledge Drawn From These Principles
• Chap. X.: The Definition and Division of Principles
• Chap. XI.: On Certain Principles Which Are Common to All Sciences
• Chap. XII.: On Questions, And, In Passing, On the Way In Which Sciences Are Extended
• Chap. XIII.: The Difference Between the Demonstration and Science of a Thing’s Nature and Those of Its Cause
• Chap. XIV.: The Figure Proper to Demonstrate Syllogism
• Chap. XV.: On Immediate Negative Propositions
• Chap. XVI.: On Ignorance Resulting From a Defective Arrangement of Terms In Mediate Propositions
• Chap. XVII.: On Ignorance Resulting From a Defective Arrangement of Terms In Immediate Propositions
• Chap. XVIII.: On Ignorance As Resulting From Defective Sense Perception
• Chap. XIX.: Whether the Principles of Demonstration Are Finite Or Infinite
• Chap. XX.: Middle Terms Are Not Infinite
• Chap. XXI.: In Negations Some Final and Ultimate Point Is Reached Where the Series Must Cease
• Chap. XXII.: In Affirmations Some Final and Ultimate Point Is Reached Where the Series Must Cease
• Chap. XXIII.: Certain Corollaries
• Chap. XXIV.: Whether Universal Or Particular Demonstration Is Superior
• Chap. XXV.: That Affirmative Is Superior to Negative Demonstration
• Chap. XXVI.: Direct Demonstration Is Superior to Reduction Per Impossible
• Chap. XXVII.: What Science Is More Certain and Prior, and What Less Certain and Inferior
• Chap. XXVIII.: What Constitutes One Or Many Sciences
• Chap. XXIX.: Concerning Many Demonstrations of the Same Thing
• Chap. XXX.: On Fortuitous Occurrences
• Chap. XXXI.: Sense Perception Cannot Give Demonstrative Science
• Chap. XXXII.: On the Difference of Principles Corresponding to the Difference of Syllogisms
• Chap. XXXIII.: The Distinction Between Science and Opinion
• Chap. XXXIV.: On Sagacity
• Book II.
• Chap. I.: On the Number and Arrangements of Questions
• Chap. II.: Every Question Is Concerned With the Discovery of a Middle Term
• Chap. III.: The Distinction Between Definition and Demonstration
• Chap. IV.: The Essence of a Thing Cannot Be Attained By Syllogism
• Chap. V.: Knowledge of the Essence Cannot Be Attained By Division
• Chap. VI.: The Essence Cannot Be Proved By the Definition of the Thing Itself Or By That of Its Opposite
• Chap. VII.: Whether the Essence Can In Any Way Be Proved
• Chap. VIII.: How the Essence Can Be Proved
• Chap. IX.: What Essences Can and What Cannot Be Proved
• Chap. X.: The Nature and Forms of Definition
• Chap. XI.: The Kinds of Causes Used In Demonstration
• Chap. XII.: On the Causes of Events Which Exist, Are In Process, Have Happened, Or Will Happen
• Chap. XIII.: On the Search For a Definition
• Chap. XIV.: On the Discovery of Questions For Demonstration
• Chap. XV.: How Far the Same Middle Term Is Employed For Demonstrating Different Questions
• Chap. XVI.: On Inferring the Cause From the Effect
• Chap. XVII.: Whether There Can Be Several Causes of the Same Thing
• Chap. XVIII.: Which Is the Prior Cause, That Which Is Nearer the Particular, Or the More Universal?
• Chap. XIX.: On the Attainment of Primary Principles
• Appendix. Prior Analytics. Book II.
• Chap. XXIII.: On Induction
• XXIV.: On Example

CHAP. VI.

The Essence cannot be proved by the Definition of the thing itself or by that of its opposite

Is it possible to demonstrate the real essence of a subject when one has assumed hypothetically that the essential nature of that subject is one of the properties which constitute its formal cause, and that only those particular qualities, all being peculiar to the subject, are so included? (That is the meaning of the essence of a subject).

Has one not however really used the same term, the notion of formal cause, twice over? for one must effect the proof by means of the middle term which ought itself to be proved. Further, just as in a syllogism there is no assumption as to the nature of inference, for the premises on which the syllogism is based always bear the relation of whole or of part to each other, so the essential form of syllogism ought not to be included in the syllogism, but to remain outside the particular premises.

One should meet an objector who questions whether an inference is syllogistic or not, by saying, ‘that at least is the process which we meant by syllogism,’ and to one who asserts that we have not the essential form of syllogism, we should answer with a denial, saying that this was what we meant by the essential form of syllogism. Thus some conclusion may be arrived at without any definition of its essence or of its essential form being given.

Neither can a definition be proved by means of a hypothesis, as illustrated by the following example. Assuming that Evil consists in the quality of ‘the manifold,’ and, in the case of subjects which have an opposite, the opposite of evil, is the opposite of manifold; it might be inferred that good, as being the opposite of evil will possess the quality which is the opposite of manifold, and the essence of good will be proved to be the same as the essence of indivisible. Here too, however, the proof is effected by assuming the essential form of the subject and then proving it, and this assumption is made for the express purpose of effecting the proof. It may be objected that the same term is not really used both in the definition of evil and in the proof, and that there is difference. This may be admitted; for in demonstrations also it is assumed that one thing is predicable of another; but it is not, as in this case, the thing itself which has to be proved, nor yet that which has the same definition or is convertible with it.

The following difficulty applies both to a proof proceeding by division and to a syllogism based on definition. Why are the predicates of a definition not taken separately, as, in the sentence above ‘man is a biped animal,’ why should one not say ‘an animal’ and ‘biped’? The assumptions underlying the definition in no way demand that the attributes predicated should form a single expression; they might be stated separately, as one might call man both ‘musical’ and ‘capable of writing,’ not a ‘musical writer.’