Predication,according to the elder,is a process of naming.Apredicate is a name of the same thing of which the subject is a name;and to predicate is simply to assert this identity of names.This doctrine,as Mill thinks,is equally implied in the dictum de omni et nullo which is taken as the explanation of the syllogism.We have arbitrarily put a number of things in a class,and to 'reason'is simply to repeat of each what we have said of all.This is to put the cart before the horse,or to assume that the classification precedes the reason for classification,though probably the theory,thus nakedly stated,would not be granted by any one.(20)What,then,is the true theory?That is explained by the distinction between 'connotation'and 'denotation,'which Mill accepted (though inverting the use of the words)from his father.A general name such as 'man'denotes John,Thomas,and other individuals.It connotes certain 'attributes,'such as rationality and a certain shape.When,therefore,I say that John is a man,I say that he has the attributes 'connoted';and when Isay that all men are mortal,I assert that along with the other attributes of man goes the attribute of mortality.(21)Predication,then,in general,involves the attribute of 'relation.'We may assert the simple existence of a 'quality,'or,which is the same thing,of a 'sensation';but to say that John is a man.or that men are mortal,or to make any of the general propositions which constitute knowledge,is to assert some of those 'relations'which are perceived when we consider two or more things together.
'Things,'then,so far as knowable are clusters (in Hartley's language)of 'attributes';and the attributes may be equally regarded as 'feelings.'To predicate is to refer a thing to one of the clusters,and therefore to assert its possession of the attributes connoted.I will only note in passing that by declining to go into the metaphysical question as to the difference between 'attributes'and 'sensations,'or thoughts and things,Mill leaves an obscurity at the foundation of his philosophy.But leaving this for the present,it is enough to say that we have our five possible types of predication.(22)All propositions may be reduced to one of the forms.Things exist or coexist or follow or resemble or are cause or effect.(23)The next problem,therefore,is,How are these propositions to be proved?or,by what tests is our belief to be justified.
What may be the nature of belief itself is a question which Mill leaves to the analytical psychologist,(24)who,as he admits,will probably find it puzzling,if not hopeless.But as we all agree that somehow or other we attain knowledge,we may inquire what is implied in the process.Now,some part of our knowledge obviously depends upon 'experience.'We know of any particular fact from the testimony of our senses.We know that London Bridge exists because we have seen and touched it;and it would be obviously hopeless to try to deduce ts existence from the principle of the excluded middle.London Bridge would then be something independent of time and place.But do we not want something more than bare experience when we lay down a general rule is a law of nature?Then we not only say 'is,'but 'must be';and this,according to the Intuitionist,marks the introduction of something more than an appeal to 'experience.'
There are truths,he says,which represent 'laws of thought';which are self-evident,or perceived by 'intuition';or the contrary of which is 'inconceivable.'Without some such laws,we could not bind together the shifting data of experience,or advance from 'is'to 'must be,'or even to 'will be.'We lose all certainty,and fall into the scepticism of Hume,which makes belief a mere 'custom,'regards all things as distinct atoms conjoined but not connected,and holds that 'anything may be the cause of anything.'Mill's aim is to explode the intuitions without falling into the scepticism.Necessary truths,he holds,are mere figments.All knowledge whatever is of the empirical type.'This has been'justifies 'this will be.'Empirical truths clearly exist,and are held undoubtingly,although they have no foundation except experience.Nobody ever doubted that all men die;yet no 'proof'of the fact could be ever suggested,before physiology was created,except the bare fact that all men have died.If physiology has made the necessity more evident,it has not appreciably strengthened the conviction.We all believe even now that thunder will follow lightning,though nobody has been able to show why it should follow.The ultimate proof in countless cases,if not in all,is simply that some connection has been observed,and,in many such cases,the belief reaches a pitch which excludes all perceptible doubt.As a fact,then,belief of the strongest kind can be generated from simple experience.The burthen of proof is upon those who assume different origins for different classes of truth.(25)
II.SYLLOGISM AND DEFINITION
