The Nature of Logic

Augustine Mary F. Abellana

“Logica est scientia philosophica operationum intellectus ad verum dirigendarum”
Nature of Logic
Logic is philosophical science of the operations of the intellect in order to lead
them to the truth. This definition of Logic is considerably the most complete and
concise explanation for the branch of Philosophy. It includes the three main areas of
the study which is the object (material object), the aspect which the object is studied
and the instrument which is used to study the material object.

Objects of the Study

Logic, being a branch of philosophy, has its own unique objects of study. These
are unique to it and separates it from related disciplines. With regards to the material
object of the study, meaning that which is being studied, logic deals with the operations
of the intellect. For the formal object quod, which is the aspect which the subject is
studied, Logic studies the subject in order to direct it to the truth. This would lead us
to the conclusion that Logic is a practical philosophy because it aims towards what
knowledge ought to be which is the truth. For the formal object quod, which is the
instrument by which the subject is studied, Logic uses human reason alone, in respect
to its being a philosophical discipline making it a purely rational science.
Material Object of Logic
Logic holds the operations of the intellect as the object of its study. However, the
operations of the intellect are also regarded as the material object of two different, but
near-identical, disciplines (other than Logic) namely: Gnoseology and Rational
Psychology. The operations of the intellect are divided into three. The first one is when
one simply apprehends a thing and an idea or concept is created in the mind and then
it is outwardly expressed as a term.Second, when the idea is already expressed as a term
and there is already a clear perception of it then it is judged and enunciated which
would then be expressed as a proposition. Lastly when the proposition is expressed and
there is already clear judgment one reasons out to support the judgment and it is
expressed through arguments.
N.B. In these processes, we stress the product itself and not the product.

Difference between Logic, Gnoseology and Rational Psychology

Logic is differentiated from the other philosophical disciplines, Gnoseology and
Rational Psychology through the formal object quod. This is because Logic directs the
intellect to the truth while Gnoseology determines its validity and Rational
Psychology concentrates on the process of the operations.
Examples of Arguments
Logic has a unique division that are functional in nature. This is because they are
only realized whenever they are used in syllogisms. First division is the Logic where
the conclusion is valid and true. Second division is the Logic that has valid but not
true conclusion following the premises. Last division is the Logic that has no valid
conclusion but it is true.
Reasoning is an essential factor in order that the conclusion may be valid and
true (coherent). Therefore, it is important to know that there are two essential rules in
reasoning. First, the reasoning has to be true in relation to the propositions of the
premises (veracity). Second, there must be a connection between the judgments and
the form must be organized. An example for this would be the first division of Logic.
Logic as an art and a science
Logic, as a philosophy, is both an art and a science. It is an art because, just like
an art that has rules and methodologies, it offers rules for the direction to the truth.
In relation to this, it is a science because the rules must be demonstrated through
principles.
The three main principles of Logic are as follows: Principle of Identity,
Contradiction and Exclusive middle.
Logic as the science of the second intention
Logic is regarded as a science of the second intention because it deals not with
the mere knowledge of reality but it tends towards the knowledge of knowledge. While,
on the other hand, the disciplines that deal with the knowledge of reality fall into the
sciences of the first intention.

Further on the Simple Apprehension

Simple apprehension is the first step to achieving the highest point of reasoning
which is producing an argument since the concept/idea is the first product of the
intellect. Concept comes from the Latin word conscipere which means to conceive
because when one apprehends, or simply thinks, a thing then a mental representation
of it is conceived in the mind from the physical object which is called the idea or the
concept. This is different from mere phantasms which are born out of the imagination
and therefore grows vague in complexity and is particular. On the other hand, ideas are
born out of the intellect rather than the imagination and are clear even in
complexity and is universal. Idea comes from the Greek word Ideien which means
similarity or similitude which is the essence of the idea being the mental
representation of the physical object therefore has to be a direct mental picture of the
physical. The term notion is also used in simple apprehension because concept/idea is
the first thing that the intellect knows its first product.
Concept has two essential logical properties. These are comprehension and
extension. Comprehension indicates all the intellectual/logical notes present in the
representation of the thing, in the concept. The more complex/unique the thing, the
greater its comprehension. Extension, on the other hand, refers to the totality of the
individuals to which the concepts could be applied. The more complex/unique the thing,
the lesser the extension. They share an inversely proportional relationship.
Concepts could then be classified into four divisions. The first of which is by
reason of origin which is made from the direct presence of the thing or the mere
concept of it present in the mind. This could be further divided into reflex and direct
conception. Reflex conception is formed not directly from the presence of the things
but from a concept of a thing. An example of this is the concept of sickness which is
born indirectly from the concept of a sick man. Meanwhile, a direct conception is
formed from direct contact with a thing. The direct conception is further divided into
intuitive and abstractive. Intuitive conception is knowing a thing as if it is present in
front of one's vision or from the actual presence of the thing. An example of this would
be the saints who claimed that they saw God present in front of them. On the contrary,
abstractive conception comes not from the direct perception of the thing but from its
effects or knowing through reason. An example for this would be God, we have not
seen him but we conceive him through his effects/works.
Another classification of a concept is by reason of its comprehension. As we
know, comprehension is the summation of all logical notes present about the subject.
There are two possible divisions of this: abstract and concrete. Abstract
comprehension represents quality and it does not have an individual subject. For
example, beauty, justice and honesty could be possessed by multiple bearers but has no
individuality in terms of property and form. Concrete comprehension represents an
individual subject with a form, a quality and property. For example, honest being,
beautiful girl and diligent man.
The third classification of concept is by reason of extension. This is a discourse on
the number of individuals inclusive of the concept.It could be further divided into three.
First, some concepts are singular in nature and therefore could only be applied to one
(proper noun). An example of this is a proper noun, Joseph Raymund N. Arong, because
it could only, in any way, be applied to one person. Second, some concepts are
particular which means it could be applied to a few, most or many individuals. An
example of this is the notion of men being learned because though all men have the
capacity, but not all are learned. Lastly, some concepts, if not most, are universal and
could be attributed to a group and its member at the same time. Too properly assess this
attribution, one must look at the connection between each member of the group and the
group itself (subject and predicate), if the predicate is necessary to the subject then it is
universal. An example of this is the notion that man is not an animal, the predicate is
very much necessary in attributing the rational nature of the subject, which is man. The
universal concepts have a common relative called the collective concepts however, the
collective concepts could represent only the group but not the individual. An example
of this is the army, one could not represent the entire army with a single unit.
The last classification of a concept is by reason of its compatibility with other
concepts. There are two main divisions of this classification. The first of which are
compatible concepts and, as the word suggests, these are the concepts that could be
combined with other concepts to make another concept. These are usually based on
qualitative coherence. An example of this division would be adding the concepts white
and sweet one could apprehend sugar. In the opposite side of the coin are the
incompatible concepts which, from the definition of the word, are the concepts that
could not be combined. Examples for this would be the concept of bitter and sweet
which could birth no homogeneous concept but a heterogeneous mix of both
(bittersweet). The incompatible concepts are further divided into four sub-
classifications. First, are the relative concepts which are concepts that necessarily
connotes/includes each other. An example of this would be the concepts of father and
son, one could not be a father if he does not have a son and vice-versa.Take one out of
existence and the other one would inevitably follow. Second sub-classification are the
privative concepts which are concepts that represents a due perfection and a total lack
thereof. An example of this would be health and sickness because sickness being the
total or partial lack of health. However, this could be challenged because only the due
perfection should be considered. Take into consideration the ignorance/insufficiency of
the farmer’s knowledge of logic this may appear privative but the condition is not a
privation because it is not a due perfection considering that the farmer is not required
to have a profound knowledge of Logic. Third sub-classification would be the concepts
that are contradictory which are those concepts that absolutely reject one another
without middle ground. An example of this is the living and its total rejection, non-
living. Non-living is not just the total absence of life but rejects it totally meaning it
cancels its existence and there is no spectrum in the middle of them, considering that
there is no such thing as half-living. Last sub-classification are the ones that are
contrary with each other meaning they reject each other but there exists a spectrum
between them, some middle ground. This resides in the fact that one of them has a
quality that the other lacks but the quality itself is common (such as color). Examples
of this are the colors red and blue which reject each other in the bounds of a common
characteristic with a spectrum which is color (red being a warm color and blue cool).
Expressions of a concept
For the term to ascend through the ranks of the operations of the mind, it is
expressed physically through terms. Terms could be related to the word “terminal”
which means end or the end of thought because the term is the ultimate product of
though in itself. Because terms are expressions of a concept, the classifications of
concepts apply to them (terms).
A term is a sensible and conventional sign expressive of a concept. It is sensible
because it could be perceived through the senses (heard or read). On a brief note, a term
must be a tangible sign that leads to the knowledge of a thing. A term is a conventional
sign of a concept because, though speaking/writing comes natural to man, however, the
words are conceived by agreement or usage (arbitrary), from the Latin word convenire
which means to come together.
Classifications of a term
Though they are but extensions of concepts, the terms do have unique
classifications of their own. First of these classifications are the terms that are univocal,
meaning they have only one possible meaning. Example of this is the word man which
pertains only to the rational members of the animal kingdom. Before, there was a
plethora of univocal terms but due to the weakness of human intellect to give a term
multiple meanings many of these terms became equivocal. Equivocal terms, on the
other hand, are the terms that have multiple meanings but are confusing because some
could be equivocal only when spoken while others when written. An example of an
equivocal term when speaking are the words fair and fare which are near-
interchangeable in speech but clearly different in writing. An example for those that are
equivocal when written are the words read and read which are identical in writing but
differ in pronunciation. The last classification of terms are the analogous terms which
are partly different and partly similar in meaning which could be applied to many things
primarily and secondarily to some because of the connection of proposition to which
they are applied. The analogous terms are divided into two main groups, those that are
analogous because of attribution and those that are analogous because of proportion.
In those that are analogous because of attribution, there is a primary analogate, or the
main things that holds a certain meaning, and secondary analogates or those that are
connected to the primary because of a certain essential connection between them. For
example, the primary analogate being healthy is applied to a living being but it would
have secondary analogates which are connected to it through the concept of health,
medicine (preservation) and food (sustenance). Those that are analogous because of
proportion are concentrated on similitude but not identity and it is applied to many
things. An example of this would be similarities of the foot of the table and the foot of
the mountain. Metaphors are based on an analogy of proportion which the previous
example is one.

Being is a concept that could be applied to both the infinite and the finite, thus
making it a most encompassing concept. The finite constituents of this term would
include even the inanimate objects of the world. An example of this would be God as
the primary analogate, the highest/perfect being, and man as the secondary analogate
because no matter how complex, we are only contingent/accidental beings to God. The
existence of God is essential but ours merely contingent. Substance, on the other hand,
is an offset of being. When one has being, then it follows that it has a substance.
Substance exists in itself and is therefore unchangeable and permanent. This differs it
from its corporeal counterpart, the accidents, which exists in a substance. The being of
substance is different from the being of accidents but there is a similarity between them,
but not identity. What we see around us are accidents and the substance remains
inconspicuous to the eye. Most philosophers surmise that there exists only accidents
but no substance but without substance, accidents would inevitably crumble. They
would undertake existence without permanence thus, destroying their very essence.
Ordinary Logic
As one could deduce from this paper, Logic is indeed a very tedious and
scrupulous discipline. It features a plethora of complex rational terms that may seem
insignificant to mundane life. However, there also exists a type of Logic that governs
this area, the vulgar Logic. This is simply placed as the Logic of ordinary people such
as farmers, by-standers and the likes. It explains why even the uneducated people, who
haven’t dabbled with Logic, are somewhat logical or we may even say wise.