FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102  
103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   >>   >|  
ubdivisions of Parts of Speech in our grammars. Its universality of acceptance is shown in the fact that the words _category_ ([Greek: kategoria]) and _predicament_, its Latin translation, have passed into common speech. The Categories have been much criticised and often condemned as a division, but, strange to say, few have inquired what they originally professed to be a division of, or what was the original author's basis of division. Whether the basis is itself important, is another question: but to call the division imperfect, without reference to the author's intention, is merely confusing, and serves only to illustrate the fact that the same objects may be differently divided on different principles of division. Ramus was right in saying that the Categories had no logical significance, inasmuch as they could not be made a basis for departments of logical method; and Kant and Mill in saying that they had no philosophical significance, inasmuch as they are founded upon no theory of Knowing and Being: but this is to condemn them for not being what they were never intended to be. The sentence in which Aristotle states the objects to be divided, and his division of them is so brief and bold that bearing in mind the subsequent history of the Categories, one first comes upon it with a certain surprise. He says simply:-- "Of things expressed without syntax (_i.e._, single words), each signifies either substance, or quantity, or quality, or relation, or place, or time, or disposition (_i.e._, attitude or internal arrangement), or appurtenance, or action (doing), or suffering (being done to)."[1] The objects, then, that Aristotle proposed to classify were single words (the _themata simplicia_ of the Schoolmen). He explains that by "out of syntax" ([Greek: aneu symplokes]) he means without reference to truth or falsehood: there can be no declaration of truth or falsehood without a sentence, a combination, or syntax: "man runs" is either true or false, "man" by itself, "runs" by itself, is neither. His division, therefore, was a division of single words according to their differences of signification, and without reference to the truth or falsehood of their predication.[2] Signification was thus the basis of division. But according to what differences? The Categories themselves are so abstract that this question might be discussed on their bare titles interminably. But often when abstract terms are doubtful, an aut
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102  
103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

division

 

Categories

 

single

 
syntax
 
objects
 

reference

 
falsehood
 

question

 

Aristotle

 

significance


logical
 

author

 

differences

 

divided

 

sentence

 
abstract
 

action

 

appurtenance

 

arrangement

 
things

expressed

 
simply
 

substance

 

relation

 

suffering

 

quantity

 

doubtful

 
internal
 

attitude

 

signifies


disposition

 

quality

 

proposed

 

combination

 

declaration

 

discussed

 

signification

 

predication

 

Signification

 

surprise


themata

 

simplicia

 

classify

 

Schoolmen

 

explains

 

titles

 
symplokes
 

interminably

 

Knowing

 

inquired