mode is slower, and more under the conscious direction of the mind. Its suggestion of thought is in answer to continued inquiry; its analysis scrutinizes each element in succession; its synthesis is deliberate systematization; its inference considers, one after the other, antecedent, consequent, and the connection between them; in short, the energy of its attention is directed in turn to all the several elements of an act of knowledge, so that the nature and use of each may be properly apprehended. On this account this mode of reason has been called the discursive. It has also been styled the speculative, and under this title may be properly contrasted with that practical mode of reason which we have just defined.

But while reason is divided into the intuitive and the discursive, or the practical and the speculative, these are radically the same power, and differ only in the mode of their operation. The elements and methods of thought and of belief are the same in both. Intuitive reason may be compared to a practised military genius who perceives at first sight all the capabilities of a field of battle; discursive reason is the less experienced and it may be less talented commander, who surveys each part of the field in succession, and forms his plan of action gradually.

Such being the case, it is plain that the term "reason" cannot be exactly replaced by the expression "discursive faculty,' one form of reason being in a sense intuitive. Yet reason may properly enough be called the discursive faculty, provided only it be understood that such language is adopted, because discourse is the more prominent mode of reason, and that alone in which the nature and workings of this power can be directly seen and studied. The intuitive exercise of reason is too rapid for either contemplation or control; it can be understood and influenced only through a knowledge of the nature of rational discourse and of the rules by which this should be regulated. The philosophy of reason must mainly concern itself with the discursive development. But in speaking of reason as discursive, we must guard against misapprehension.

The reason and the un

identical.

In this connection let us notice an unwarranted distinction which has been made between the reason and derstanding the understanding. Some have confined the former term to what we have called the intuitive reason, and have assigned the latter to the discursive faculty; while others, adopting an opposite use of language, have given intuition to the understanding and discourse to reason. The fact is that both terms indicate the same thing, though under different points of view. The designation 66 reason is derived from the essential work of the faculty, that is, from that perception and col

lation of things and their relations (res, reor) whence our higher knowledge takes its rise; while the name "understanding springs from a reference to the result of the foregoing perception, whereby one figuratively stands under the facts he has considered, that is, below their superficial appearance and among their causes. This result is directly indicated by the verb "to understand," and therefore the noun understanding more immediately suggests that discursive faculty by the use of which, ordinarily, one consciously attains to rational intelligence. To the common mind the term "reason" is without this suggestiveness. But that both terms have essentially the same application is chiefly evinced by the fact that the phenomena ascribed to both faculties, when sifted and explained, call only for the existence of one faculty.

reason, dis

66

The rational Such is reason. We may now inquire whether the faculty, or rational, or discursive, phase of thought, as distintinguished guished from the rational faculty, should be held to tional phase include every mental operation in which reason partiof thought. cipates; or should it be confined to those in which reason is the prominent and controlling factor?

from the ra

If we adopt the former alternative, we must allow the rational phase to include every exercise of the productive imagination, because this imagination constantly employs the reason and judgment. But it will contribute better to clearness of conception and statement if we limit the discursive phase to exercises of mind which are distinctively logical, whose proper purpose and result is the attainment of truth. This course will render more defined the distinction between the reproductive and the rational phase of intellect, and will agree with that frequent mode of conception according to which complex objects are named and distinguished with reference to their preponderating character.

The rational phase should include every mental activity in which the ascertainment and understanding of truth is the main purpose and result of the employment of reason, while those rational operations which are simply subordinate parts in the work of the creative imagination may be relegated to the reproductive phase. And thus, as certain modes of scientific imagination may be claimed for the rational, so certain plastic exercises of reason may be granted to the reproductive, intellect. 2. The elemental powers from which reason is constituted are the same with those which enter into our lower perceptive faculties, and have been discussed as the primary and secondary powers of mind. In treating of them much matter was introduced which psychological writers heretofore have placed under the head

Three necessary forms of rational thought: the notion, the judgment, and the inference.

of the rational faculty. This order has not been adopted in ignorance of the fact that notions, judgments, and inferences are the three generic forms of discursive thought; but it has been our desire to emphasize the doctrine that these modes of activity belong to every phase of mental life, and become distinctively rational only when reason may have conferred upon them some of its own superiority. The correctness of this position will become apparent if we consider briefly the development of these three forms of thought under the operation of rational intelligence.

The mere generalization of a conception does not call for any special strength of mind. A general notion in itself is simply a partial and indeterminate kind of thinking, and may be formed spontaneously and unconsciously. Within a certain sphere of thought it is not beyond the in ellect of the brute. Only those notions are distinctively the products of reason which arise from intentional analysis and abstraction, or rather from a conscious determination to know and understand. Rational conception originates in the clear analytical perception of things, and employs generalization only incidentally. It takes place in the first instance when some individual object – a book, an inquiry, a quarrel, a distance, a delay is made the object of attentive consideration. This step is followed by the abstraction and generalization of those qualities, or characters, which are recognized as the basis of laws; and this again is succeeded by the formation of new conceptions so complicated and so comprehensive as to be beyond the reach of any but rational beings. Finally, a yet higher intelligence is obtained by the accurate definition of ideas, by the logical division of them, and by their arrangement in systems. In this way sciences originate.

Judgment, as a mental modification, stands midway between the notion and the inference. So far as it consists of thought judgment is an existential conception, but in addition to this it includes conviction or belief. In inference the formation of conviction is more prominent than in simple judgment; for inference founds one judgment on another or on others. A rational judgment arises when things are seen in their deeper and wider relations, or even when a superficial fact is analytically considered; and such a judgment, when fully formed and expressed, is called a proposition.

We cannot join those who say that the exercise of reason depends on language, but it certainly is greatly facilitated by the use of this instrument; nor is there anything more marvellous than the way in which the words of a proposition set forth the elements which are united in every rational judgment.

The inference may be regarded as consisting of two judgments, or propositions, connected with each other as antecedent and consequent; and it is rational inference, or reasoning, only when it involves a noticeable degree of analytic or comprehensive thought. The antecedent proposition may be either simple or compound, according to the nature of the fact or truth presented by it; but the inference can always be reduced to two propositions, and in a certain sense always consists of two only.

This may be seen, first, in the case of those inferences which logicians call immediate. In the example, "Nine inches are part of a foot, therefore they are less than a foot," there are two simple propositions, the latter being the consequent and the former the antecedent. But should we say, "John is older than Hugh, and Hugh is older than William; therefore John is older than William," the antecedent might be said to contain two propositions, as it certainly does; yet neither of these by itself constitutes an antecedent; both must be taken together to express one compound fact, namely, "John is older than Hugh, who is older than William." This compound proposition is the antecedent; so the argument is reduced to two propositions, though one of them is compounded and double.

In those inferences, also, which logicians call mediate, the antecedent consists of one proposition, that is, of the statement When we say,

of one fact, though it be compounded of two. "Hindoos are men, and men are mortal," there are two propositions, neither of which alone would lead to any conclusion; but the compound proposition resulting from their union is a logical antecedent. For we may say, "Hindoos belong to the class, men, who are mortal," or "Hindoos have the nature of man, which is subject to death; " whence we infer, "Hindoos are mortal," or "are subject to death."

Any detailed discussion of the forms of rational thought does not lie within the limits of our present purpose. Logic is the science which sets forth the laws according to which these forms are constructed and employed.

We are convinced that the progress of philosophic analysis calls for a more natural and less dogmatic development of this science than any that has yet appeared, and confidently hope for a satisfactory logic in the near future. For a true theory of rational conviction must spring from analysis and not from assumption. Partly to support the possibility of this hope, we shall close our discussion of the discursive intellect with some remarks on the principal, or generic, modes of reasoning.

CHAPTER XLVIII.

RATIOCINATION.

Reasoning, or 1. THE name reasoning, or ratiocination, might ratiocination, be applied to every exercise of the discursive faculty, defined. Syllogism de- and is sometimes so employed. But, more comfined. monly, it is restricted to conscious and intentional inference; and we shall use the term with this meaning.

This inference may consist of one act of reasoning, or of many. In the latter case we have a course, or train, of reasoning. As the understanding of the single step renders the explanation of a succession of inferences a matter of little difficulty, the philosophy of ratiocination is chiefly concerned with the single step.

A step, or act, of reasoning, when fully stated or expressed, may be called a syllogism. Aristotle says: "A syllogism is a sentence in which, certain things being laid down, something else, different from the premises, necessarily results in consequence of their existence." Here the essential point is, that, something being laid down, or assumed, as true, something else follows, or may be inferred, as true.

Aristotle, indeed, does not speak of a thing, but of things, being laid down, as if inference were always grounded on a plural something. This is to be accounted for by the fact that he formally recognized only those inferences which proceed from two premises. Such has been the influence of Aristotle, that almost all logicians have followed his example in this respect. Of late years, however, particular attention has been given to certain immediate inferences," in which one fact or truth is inferred from one other; and it seems best that these, as well as all other inferences, when fully stated, in thought or in language, should be called syllogisms.

A necessary

may not in

He

2. The principal point in Aristotle's definition apconsequence plies equally to all forms of inference whatever. Volve a ne says that the conclusion necessarily follows from the essary con- things laid down. This is true of every correctly sequent. formed syllogism, whether the conclusion be in itself true or not, and whether it set forth something as certainly or necessarily fact, or as being only doubtfully or probably or possibly true. In every case the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, and must do so as long as the nature of things and the nature of mind remain what they are.

In order to justify this statement, and to free the doctrine of