SUPPOSITION OF TERMS

                Supposition is the property by which a term stands for a definite one of the various things it can stand for (Bacchuber, 1957, p.230). A term can stand as a material image, as a subject or predicate of a sentence, as something pertaining a reality, or as pertaining to something or someone in reality.

Consider these examples:

1.       Chair has five letters.

2.       Chair is an absolute concept.

3.       Chair is a furniture.

4.       A chair is used to block the pathway.

In Example 1, “chair” stands as a material image, the word itself. In Example 2, “chair” stands for an essence or whatness that exists only in the mind; that is because the whatness of “chair” in this example cannot be “absolute concept” except only in the mind. In Example 3, “chair” stands for it real essence or whatness because it tells us what the chair really is. It must be noted that in this example the supposition of “chair” does not actually imply an actual existence of a chair.[1] In Example 4, however, “chair” stands for an actually existing chair. Yet in all four examples, “chair” has exactly the same meaning, signification, and definition; that is, the examples do not indicate equivocal meanings of the term “chair”.

                Shift in suppositions of terms in reasoning will lead us into error. Thus, to avoid this kind of error, it is important to be able to identify the supposition of a particular term in a particular statement.

                Consider this invalid argument:

Philosophy means love of wisdom. Existentialism is a philosophy. Hence, existentialism means love of wisdom.

                One who does not know anything about supposition will readily claim that this argument is valid. However, deeper analysis will show that this argument is invalid. We will explain why this is so after we discussed the kinds of supposition.

KINDS OF SUPPOSITION

A.      Material Supposition

It is the use of a term for the spoken or written sign itself, but not for what it signifies (Bacchuber, 1957, p.231). In the following examples, the supposition of “chair” is material: “Chair rhymes with hair,” and “Chair has R as its last letter”. In all these usages, chair is really a furniture, but the fact that chair’s being a furniture has nothing to do with the fact chair rhymes with hair, or that its last letter is R. Hence, in these examples we only consider the material make up of the word “chair”.

B.      Formal Supposition

Formal supposition is the use of a term not for the sign itself, but for what it signifies. In the example “Chair is a furniture”, chair has a formal supposition because it is not the word chair that is a furniture but what the chair signifies that is a furniture.

Types of Formal Supposition

1.       Logical Supposition

It is the use of a term for what it signifies not as it exists in the real order but as it exists only in the mind. For example, “chair” can signify as concept, as a subject of a sentence, as inferior to the term “furniture”, etc., but in all of these significations, “chair” does not refer to the chair in the real order but to the chair that is a product of mental construct.

Other examples:

        Man is an absolute concept.

        Elephant is the subject of the sentence “No elephants are pink”.

        Monkey is inferior to the term mammal.

2.       Real Supposition

It is the use of a term for what it signifies in the real order. The supposition of chair is real in the sentence, “The chair is used to block the pathway” because it refers to something in the real order.

Other examples:

        Man is a rational animal.

        Elephant is a mammal with long proboscis.

        This monkey is a primate.

Real supposition is on one hand, either absolute or personal, and on the other hand, either essential or accidental.

        Types of Real Supposition

a.       Absolute and Personal

A real supposition is absolute if it is used to refer to the whatness or essence as such and not to something or someone that bears this whatness or essence. For example, in the sentence “Man is rational”, man refers not to anyone but to the essence of man as such.

        Other examples:

                        Elephant is a mammal with long proboscis.

                        Chair is a furniture designed as a single seat.

                        Kindness is the highest virtue.

A real supposition is personal if it is used to refer not to the whatness or essence as such but to something or someone that bears this whatness or essence. In the sentence “The man is rational”, man refers to someone who has the essence of “man”; hence, it is personal.

        Other examples:

                        The elephant I saw yesterday has a very long proboscis.

                        A chair is used to block the pathway.

                        These persons are innocent.

It is very important to note that statements using terms with absolute supposition do not assert the actual existence of the terms’ signified objects. For example, the sentence “Superman is a superhero” does not imply the existence of Superman in reality. This is not true, however, in statements using terms with personal supposition. For example, the statement “Superman saved Mary Jane” implies the existence of Superman in the actual order.

b.      Essential and Accidental

A real supposition is essential if the term is predicated of essential attributes, i.e., attributes that make a thing or a substance what it is. In the sentence “Man is rational”, man has an essential supposition because rational is an essential attribute that makes man as man.

        Other examples:

                        The elephant is a mammal with long proboscis.

                        Chair is a furniture.

                        All men are mortals.

A real supposition is accidental is the term is predicated of accidental attributes, i.e., attributes that do not make a thing or substance what it is. In the sentence, “A man took his seat”, man has an accidental supposition because taking a seat is not what makes man as man.

        Other examples:

                        Elephants can be used in circuses.

                        The man has a dirty face.

                        Birds migrate from one continent to another.

Exercise (taken from Bacchuber, 1957, p.235)

Which of the kinds of supposition treated in this section are illustrated by “man” (or “men”) in each of the following propositions?

1.       Man is a rational animal.

2.       Man is one syllable.

3.       Man is a universal concept.

4.       Man is predicable of many in exactly the same sense.

5.       Man is a creature.

6.       All men are mortal.

7.       Man is mortal.

8.       This man is mortal.

9.       Man exists and has existed for many thousands of years.

10.   Take man away from woman and all you have left is wo.

11.   Some men are singing.

12.   “Some men” is the subject of the last proposition.

13.   A man is a week and sinful creature.

14.   A man made those footprints.

15.   Man has three letters.

---

[1] For another example, consider the sentence “Superman is a superhero.” The term “superman” has the same supposition with that of Example 3; and as what we said with that example, this same example does not imply the actual existence of its subject. However, if the sentence is “Superman went to New York”, the supposition of “superman” here implies the actual existence of “superman” which is the same with that of Example 4.

Correct Usage of Concepts & Terms in Reasoning

                Since concept always points to itself, it follows that it is always one and the same regardless of the language being used. For example, I cannot have a concept of a “table” when in fact I am referring to a chair, and vice versa.

Since this is the case, one important criterion for a reasoning to be called logical is that concepts are not confused with one another. In Filipino, we commonly attribute the act of confusing and misinterpreting concepts as pamimilosopo. An example would be clear: a mother called her son matigas ang ulo (hard-headed) because he is so stubborn, but the son reacted that his head is just hard as anybody else, because no head is soft! The son here confuses the concept of hard-headedness and that of having a hard head. Ergo, other than being called matigas ang ulo, the mother adds that her son is also a pilosopo; that is, one who interprets things obscurely.

To aid us in pointing the error of reasoning due to confusion of concepts or terms, it is very important to know what kinds of concepts or terms there are and the laws that govern their relationship with one another.

KINDS OF CONCEPTS AND TERMS

A.      Inferior and Superior Terms

1.       Inferior – is a term known as such because of its relationship with a superior term by way of specificity. That is, the inferior is the specification of the superior term. If the superior term is animal, then inferior terms could be bird, fish, deer, etc.

2.       Superior – is a term known as such because of its relationship with the inferior term by way of generality. That is, the superior term is the general concept of which the inferior term is a member. For example, if the inferior term is bird or cat, then its superior term is animal. If the inferior term is Filipino, then the superior term is human being.

The general rule in dealing with superior and inferior terms is that what is true with a superior term may not be true with an inferior term, but what is true with an inferior term is always true with a superior term.

This example is invalid:

        He is a teacher.

        Therefore he is a college instructor.

It does not follow that if one is a teacher (superior term) then one is also a college instructor (inferior term) since one can be a teacher without being a college instructor.

But the reverse is valid:

        He is a college instructor.

        Therefore he is a teacher.

This one is incorrect:

        If it is a reptile, then it is a snake.

This one, however, is correct:

        If it is chicken, then it is a bird.

       

B.      Concrete and Abstract Concept

1.       Concrete – is a concept that presents to the mind an individual or a subject possessing a particular attribute

2.       Abstract – is purely an attribute that does not present to the mind any subject or individual

Examples:

                Concrete                              Abstract

                animal                                   “animality”

                long                                       “length”

                white                                    “whiteness”

                human                                  “humanness/humanity”

                high                                       “height”

In making statements using these concepts, one must remember that a concrete term cannot be predicated with an abstract term, and vice versa.

For example:

                These are incorrect:

                                The top of Mount Apo is height.

                                “The top of Mount Apo” is a concrete term while “height” is an abstract term.

Humanity is going around in circle.

If not considered as metaphor, this statement would be incorrect since, strictly speaking, “going around in circle” (concrete) refers to someone so it cannot be affirmed of “humanity” (abstract term) which does not refer to anyone.

The following examples commit the same error:

Drinking eight glasses of water a day is goodness.

Beauty harms people.

Love can kill you.

C.      Absolute and Connotative

1.       Absolute – a concept that presents into the mind a substance. A substance is something that is capable of existing on its own as it is.

2.       Connotative – a concept that presents into the mind something that presupposes a substance.

Examples:

Absolute                      Connotative

man                               lazy

sun                                 luminous

wall                                white

Wall exists as a substance, but white does not. This means that we do not see white in itself; what we see is a white wall or a white cloth or a white dress. So white presupposes an absolute concept (substance) like wall or cloth or dress in order to exist. In the same way, we do not encounter lazy as it is, what we encounter is a lazy person or a lazy animal. All adjectives are connotative.

One cannot make use of connotative concepts without presupposing absolute concepts.

For example, one cannot say:

                                The brown jumped over the lazy dog near the river bank, or

The big walked in the dark.

               

D.      Unconnected Concepts

Concepts are unconnected if both of them are inferior that neither oppose nor include one another. They are called unconnected because the truth value of one inferior term does not imply, or is not necessarily connected to, the truth value of the other inferior term. For example, the statement “Some birds migrated” does not have anything to do with the statement “Some zebras migrated” because what can be true to a bird may not be true to a zebra, both of which are inferior to the term animal, so they are unconnected.

Hence, the general rule is that an inferior term cannot be inferred from another inferior term.

               

                Here are examples which violate this rule:

                                He is bald.

                                Therefore, he is mute.

                               

Filipinos are hospitable, so it follows that Canadians are hospitable also.

                                Some senators are lawyers; therefore, some congressmen are lawyers.

E.       Connected Concepts

These are concepts so related to one another that one either exclude or include the other. There are various types of connected concepts. These are:

1.       Concepts that Include One Another

Examples of these concepts are synonymous terms, while others are an inferior term and a superior term. There are also abstract concepts that are so related with one another that one cannot be thought without including the other. Examples of these concepts could be justice and fairness, freedom and responsibility, etc. However, the question of whether these abstract concepts are really related to one another is a philosophical problem and could not be dealt properly here.

a.       Synonymous terms

One may interchange a term with another synonymous term without changing the original meaning that one tries to convey. So, if reasoning proceeds from one term to another synonymous term, it is valid.

                                Example:

                                                Those who labor must receive credit.

                                                The reward must be in a form of ready money.

                                                Therefore, those who work must receive cash.

There are three pairs of synonymous terms in this valid argument: “labor-work”, “credit-reward”, “ready money-cash”.

b.      Superior and Inferior terms

A superior and an inferior term include one another because both of them can be true in a substance or individual. For example, something is both a bird and animal, and it would be impossible to be a bird without being an animal. However, the extent of their inclusion to one another is only limited in that a superior term and an inferior term may also not be true in a substance or individual. For example, something can be an animal but not a bird.

Hence, from this observation, we conclude that what is being affirmed to an inferior term cannot be denied to a superior term, but not vice versa.

These examples are invalid:

That thing is a plane. So, it is not a vehicle.

That thing is a bird. Therefore it is a sparrow.

                                                These examples, however, are valid:

                                                                That thing is a plane, so it is a vehicle.

                                                                That thing is a bird, so it may be a sparrow.

2.       Concepts that Exclude One Another

These are concepts whose presence of one necessarily excludes the other although one cannot be realized without the other.

These are the types of concepts that exclude one another:

                                   

a.       Relative Concepts

They are called relative concepts because even if they cannot be simultaneously true in a substance or individual and are also not opposed to one another, still one cannot be realized without the other. For example the concepts husband and wife are relative concepts. Even if no one can be both a husband and a wife, and even if husband and wife are not opposed to each other, no one can be called a husband without a concept of wife just as nobody can be called a wife if there is no concept of husband.

Other examples:

                parent – offspring

                teacher – student

                adviser – advisee

                brother – brother/sister

Examples of incorrect statements using relative concepts:

                I am your father but you are not my son.

                Rex is a follower who does not follow anyone.

                                                “Don Quixote is a lover without a loved one.”

b.      Contrary Concepts

These are opposing concepts whose affirmation of one is necessarily a negation of the other, but whose negation of one does not necessarily mean an affirmation of the other. For example, the concepts black and white are contrary concepts, so that if something is black (affirmation), then that something cannot be white (negation); but, if something is not black (negation), it does not necessarily mean that that thing is white (affirmation).

Other examples:

                good – evil                                          rational - irrational

                light – darkness                                                motivated - unmotivated

                boy – girl                                              intentional - unintentional

                dead – alive                                        logical – illogical

These are invalid arguments that use contrary concepts:

                The font color is not black, so it is white.

                If one is not a boy, then that one is a girl.

                That thing is not alive. Therefore it is dead.

Let us explain some of them. It does not mean that if one is not a boy then that one  is already a girl since it is possible that the one being referred to may not have any sex at all. Or, if a thing is not alive, it does not mean that it is already dead; for example, we do not call a table or a chair or a stone dead although they are not alive.

c.       Contradictory Concepts

These are opposing concepts whose affirmation of one necessarily entails negation of the other, and vice versa. For example, black and non-black are contradictory concepts, so if something is black then it is not a non-black, or if something is a non-black then it is not black.

Other examples:

                life – lifeless

                man – non-man

                rational – non-rational

                motivated – non-motivated

Sometimes, there is confusion between a negative contrary concept and a negative contradictory concept.              For example, one confuses between ­non-rational and irrational, or non-motivated and unmotivated. Although these concepts appear to be analogous or synonymous still they are different. That is, it does not mean that if one is non-rational, then that one is irrational, or if something is non-motivated, it does not mean that it is unmotivated. But the reverse is not true: if something is dead, surely it is lifeless, or if something is white­, surely it is non-black.

Examples of invalid arguments because of confusion between contrary and contradictory concepts:

               

This life-form is non-male. So, it is a female.

                The crowd is non-organized, so it is disorganized.

                The feeling is painless; therefore it is pleasurable.

                                These examples, however, are valid:

                                                The feeling is painful; therefore it is not pleasurable.

                                                The crowd is organized, so it not disorganized.

                                                The man is blind. Thus, he is sightless.

F.       Univocal, Equivocal and Analogous Terms

Distinction between univocal, equivocal and analogous terms is important because it guides us in understanding whether or not a discourse using any of these kinds of terms deserves merit. Usually, incorrect reasoning is brought about by confusion on how the term is being used in a particular discourse.

Let us take this example:

                Ilonggo: Magkadto ta karon. (We will go later)

                Cebuano: Tara na! (Let’s go)

                Ilonggo: Hambal ko karon lang. (I said we’ll go later)

                Cebuano: Karon gani. Tara na! (You said “now”, so let’s go)

                                                                                                                             

                Karon in this discourse is equivocal. In one sense, it means “later”; in the other sense, it means “now”. Thus, both the Ilonggo and and the Cebuano have ignorantly misinterpreted each other.

                Consider another example:

                                Pastor: Let us give our hearts to God.

                                Child: Would I not die if I do it?

                                Pastor: Yes dear child, but to die in God means life.

                Surely, the child and the pastor do not mean the same thing.

1.       Univocal Terms

A term is univocal if it is used in a discourse twice or more but in exactly the same sense.

                Examples:

                                My men are hungry, but your men were filled.

                                “Pablo” and “Yolanda” are strong typhoons.

                                Arroyo and Aquino were senators.

               

2.       Equivocal Terms

A term is equivocal if it is used in a discourse twice or more in a completely different sense.

                Examples:

                                “Yolanda” is a typhoon and a girl.

                                Alexander is a man; the picture on the wall is a man.

                                A date is a time, but it is also a romantic appointment.

3.       Analogous Terms

A term is analogous if it is used in a discourse twice or more in a sense that is partly the same and partly different.

                Examples:

The examination test is also a test of character.

I am healthy; the farm is healthy.

The warriors who died in the battle are warriors of peace.

To prevent error in reasoning, it is very important that terms are used univocally. Otherwise, confusion could arise.

                Examples:

                                All persons are mortals. The picture on the wall is a person.

                                Therefore, the picture in the wall is mortal.

                               

                                Warriors kill. The child who defeated cancer is a warrior.

                                Therefore, the child kills.

The person in the first example equivocal, while the warrior in the second is analogous, both of which commit the same error.

Thought and Fundamentals of Thinking

Thought

        Logic is a science and art of correct thinking. Thus, in studying Logic, it is important to be able to know first what is thinking.

When we think, we always think about something, and when we think about something, we have what we call thought. But what is thought and how do we acquire it?

        Our preliminary observation would show that thought is always something that our mind has. If fact, it is impossible to think that thought exists without a mind that thinks. So, we can say that thought is within us. However, if we scrutinize much further, we would see that even if thought is within us, it is not us. If I see a chair and then, because I become conscious about it, I acquire a thought of “chair” (chair-thought), two things are not me: one, the chair that I see, the other, my chair-thought. I am different from my chair-thought because myself is the one who thinks while my chair-thought is the one that is thought of[1]. Therefore, we observe that thought has its own existence in our mind whose identity or essence is independent of our own identity, although its being present in our mind is entirely dependent upon our thinking of them.

                This concept is important because it justifies why Logic is a science, an objective study of correct thinking. Accordingly, the principles and laws of correct thinking that we would discover throughout the course are not just products of flimsy imaginations of people most of whom lived hundreds and thousands of years ago; its applicability is universal. No matter what place or time, or who people are, the laws and principles set by Logic on correct thinking still maintains its objectivity and universality.       

                Another obvious observation about thinking is that among the living beings in this world, only humans are capable of producing thought. This, however, need an explanation.

There are people who believe that our only cognitive difference from animals is the complex structure of our brain. In fact, there are animals that, even if their brains are structurally inferior to ours, show cognitive skills like solving mathematical, and practical problems (like how to get a food), and having memories. This is possible since some animals are also intelligent beings[2]. But to think that they, too, have thought is another story. Our response to this problem is absolute: animals do not have thoughts. We’ll try to show it why.

Animals, as we generally agree, perceive things. They see, feel, smell, taste, and hear.

Nevertheless, perception is still different from knowledge. On one hand, perception necessarily requires the activity of senses, so that an organism cannot be said to perceive anything unless a stimulus passes through its senses. Knowledge, on the other hand, requires more than perception; it requires affirmation, something that only we, humans, are capable of. We do not only receive stimulus through our senses, but we also affirm what it is that we perceive – we affirm that it is, that it is something.

For example, some animals may perceive a brown, sweet-smelling, delicious, and big something but they could never affirm that it is, that it is a “cake”. Intelligent apes, for another example, may know how to perform arithmetic operations like addition or subtraction; they may know that one added by one is two but they do not know what it is that they add. Since they do not know what they perceive, they cannot have any idea or thought about it.

But this is not true of us. We know things because we affirm them. And why are we capable of affirmation? The answer is because, unlike animals, we have intellect. Intellect is the faculty which gives us the ability to affirm what we perceive and so grasp its whatness, its being a something.

                Notice that one element in production of thought is affirmation. This shall be our point of departure as we embark on showing how we, as thinking beings, are able to produce thoughts or ideas. The following notes will give us a sketch                on this plain.

From this point onward, we shall be using the term concept as equivalent to ideas. A little farther, we shall be using the terms concept and term univocally.

Fundamentals of Thinking

A.      Simple Apprehension

-          also known as affirmation, is the operation by which we grasp the whatness of something

-          making a thing present in and to our minds without telling something about it

-          It also means an act of being conscious about something.

-          Simple apprehension, as an act or operation, requires something to act upon just as consciousness requires something to be conscious about. This something is called object of simple apprehension. When I become conscious of something, this something then is the object of my consciousness. But how am I able to be conscious of the object of my consciousness?

B.      Concept

-          To make this object of simple apprehension present into our minds requires a sign.

-          A sign is anything that points us to something. For example, a red traffic light is a sign of “stop”, a cross is a sign of Christianity, two thumbs up is a sign of approval or congratulations, etc.

-          Unlike other signs, this sign that we are pertaining to does not point us to something else but to itself – it points itself.

-          The sign of the cross, for a contrary example, does not point itself because it points something else, namely Christianity, but “chair” (or chair-thought as we called it previously) points itself and not something else.

-          This sign of the object of simple apprehension is called concept (or thought as we called it previously).

-          E.g. Just as there is a chair that exists in reality, so there is also a “chair” that is present in our mind. The “chair” that is present in our mind (chair-thought) is an example of a concept, a sign that points to itself.

C.      Term

-          Term is also a sign, but it does not point to itself but to something else.

-          For example, when you see a word FREEDOM written with a charcoal on a wall of an abandoned building, you would immediately realize that this word does not point to itself as merely a word. In fact, it is obviously absurd to answer the question “What is that which is written on the wall?” by saying “It is a word”. This is because that which is written on the wall does not point to itself but to something else, namely a thought or an idea. The word composed of seven letters F.R.E.E.D.O.M. points us to an idea or thought which is freedom.

-          Just a concept is a sign of an object of simple apprehension, so is term the sign of a concept.

-          Differentiating concept and term is a little bit confusing. Let us, then, put it is this way: Suppose there is a Filipino and an American in a particular area and both of them only speak their own language. Then, they saw a chair. The Filipino says it is an “Upuan” while the American says it is a “Chair”. The terms “Upuan” and “Chair” are two terms but they only point one specific concept, namely upuan or chair.

One must remember, however, that in the real order, the object of simple apprehension, the concept, and the term is one thing, not three. We showed here their distinctions so that we may understand the structure through which we produce thoughts.

One who studies Logic does not need to master this concept. Nevertheless, since we shall deal with the rules that govern the use of concepts and terms later on, it is very important to know what, in the first place, is concept and term.

---

[1] This case is different, however, when my thought is myself. In this kind of thought, the thought and the one who thinks is one.

[2] Intelligence and intellect, as we will show later, are two different concepts. Human beings and some animals have intelligence, so do computers, but only human beings have intellect.