Prelection
Welcome to the Classical Liberal Arts Academy. This lecture is intended for students enrolled in the Academy’s Classical Reasoning I course. If you’re not enrolled and would like to join us for self-paced studies, visit classicalliberalarts.com. My name is William Michael. I’m the academy headmaster, and I’ll be leading this study of Chapter One of Porphyry’s Introduction.
Porphyry was a Greek philosopher who lived from 234 to 305 AD. He wrote this work, the Introduction, as a commentary on Aristotle’s Categories—really a preparation for the study of Aristotle’s Categories. He wrote this around 268–270 AD. The Introduction is called Isagoge in Greek, and so you may see that word Isagoge used as the title of this work, or translations of this work.
It’s a short work, relatively easy study that explains five important terms that are used in Aristotelian logic. So it is devoted to helping us understand five key words, five key terms that are crucial for the right understanding of Aristotle’s rational philosophy. These five words are genus, difference, species, peculiarity, and accident. And these five terms are called the Five Predicables in logic because they describe different ways that we can predicate or say things about subjects. Very helpful to understand thinking and language, as you’ll see.
The Five Predicables. This first chapter serves as Porphyry’s statement of purpose. He explains what he will and will not discuss in the work, and it establishes the method that he is going to follow in preparing students, as he did, for the successful study of Aristotle’s Categories.
This text is one of the most influential works in medieval education. If we go back to old Greek and Latin copies of the works of Aristotle, or even medieval commentaries on the works of Aristotle, we will always find the Introduction of Porphyry lumped in with those texts. It’s been a part of logical studies for over 1,000 years and forms part of the foundation for Scholastic philosophy as it was developed by St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and other great thinkers. A very important study, the Introduction of Porphyry.
Prayer
This is a relatively short reading, so I’m going to read it here in our lesson. But before we get to the reading, let’s take a moment and commit our time to prayer and ask for the Lord’s blessing on our studies.
Let us pray: Lord our God, in your wisdom and love you surround us with the mysteries of the universe. Send your Spirit upon us and fill us with your wisdom and blessings. Grant that we may devote ourselves to our studies and draw ever closer to you, the source of all knowledge. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Reading
So let’s begin by reading the text of Chapter One of Porphyry’s Introduction:
“Since it is necessary both to the doctrine of the categories of Aristotle and to the formation of definitions, and in short, to those things which pertain to division and demonstration, to know what genus and difference, species, peculiarity, and accident are; and since also the theory of these is useful in a summary way, I will briefly endeavor to discuss for you, in the form, as it were, of an introduction, what has been delivered on this subject by the ancients, abstaining from more profound investigations, but appropriately directing my attention to such as are more simple. My meaning is that I shall omit to speak about genera and species, whether they have a subsistence in the nature of things or have an existence alone in the mere conceptions of the soul; and if they have a subsistence in the nature of things, whether they are bodies or incorporeal, and whether they are separate from sensibles or in sensibles and about these have their subsistence. For a discussion of this kind is most profound and requires another and a greater investigation. In what manner, however, the ancients and especially the Peripatetics discussed these and the other proposed objects of inquiry in a more logical manner, I will now endeavor to show you.”
This is Chapter One of Porphyry’s Introduction.
Division
Having read the text, let’s now identify the parts into which it might be divided so that we can divide and conquer, as it were, and break this down into individual parts for concentrated study. Porphyry seems to divide this first chapter into four clear parts.
First of all, from the beginning, he provides a statement of purpose. So Part One is a statement of purpose. He says, “since it is necessary,” and so on. He explains why the knowledge of the Five Predicables is necessary for understanding Aristotle’s Categories and a number of other tasks that we have in philosophy.
The second part of this chapter begins at “in a summary way I will briefly endeavor.” And here he lays out his method, or methodological approach to this study.
The third part begins where he says, “My meaning is,” and in this third part, he limits the scope of this study. He explicitly states that profound questions which belong to the study of metaphysics will not be addressed in this work. So this work has a specific focus.
And then lastly, in Part Four, where he says, “In what manner the ancients,” he tells us that he is going to focus entirely on the content that applies to the study of logic. He’s going to focus on logic. And it’s worth noting that he mentions the Peripatetics, who are the followers of Aristotle. Remember, for the sake of chronology, I said that Porphyry wrote this Introduction around 270 AD, so we’re talking 500 years after Aristotle wrote the Categories, 500 years after Aristotelian philosophy was taught. Porphyry is writing this Introduction. So there’s 500 years of Peripatetic teaching, the teaching of the followers of Aristotle, and Porphyry tells us he’s going to be drawing from that content to provide the content of this Introduction. He’s going to focus on logic.
So we divide this text into these four parts for study. Having read the chapter, having divided the chapter for study, now let’s go ahead and work through the interpretation of it, understanding all of the content of this important opening chapter to this important work in the study of classical reasoning.
Interpretation
Porphyry begins, as I said, with his statement of purpose. He says, “since it is necessary both to the doctrine of the categories of Aristotle and to the formation of definitions, and in short, to those things which pertain to division and demonstration, to know what genus and difference, species, peculiarity, and accident are; and since also the theory of these is useful.” So we have a clear statement of purpose. Porphyry establishes the practical necessity of his subject matter.
When he mentions the doctrine of the categories of Aristotle, he’s referring to the first of Aristotle’s logical works in the Organon, which classifies the different ways we can speak about things we can predicate concerning different subjects. These categories—such as substance, quantity, quality, relation, and so forth—are different kinds of statements, different kinds of predicates that can be made about subjects. And it’s important to distinguish these things, as we’ll see. To understand Aristotle’s Categories properly, students must first have this prerequisite knowledge. They must first understand these Five Predicables. And again, he lists them: genus, difference, species, peculiarity, and accident.
Porphyry also mentions the formation of definitions, the logical process by which we create precise statements of what things are. You may think it’s something simple to define terms, but if you actually try to do so, you find it’s really quite difficult. You have to have a great amount of wisdom to be able to give the definition of a term that doesn’t apply to anything else and completely satisfies the need to understand that thing itself. It’s very difficult.
I used to do this with my students in private school classes. As we began the study of reasoning, I would ask them to define some simple term, and the initial response would be, “Oh, that’s easy.” But then as we got into it and examined the definition, we could clearly see that it was not a sufficient definition, that there is actually a method for defining terms that needs to be learned. We need to create precise statements of what things are in philosophy—for example, defining man as a rational animal. If we were to define man in any other way by focusing on other qualities, anything less than his participation in the genus of animal and his unique quality of being rational, we would have a definition that was actually not a definition, that really didn’t explain the essence of man.
So in order to make definitions true definitions, we have to understand the concept of genus. We have to know what genus man belongs to. He belongs to the genus animal. And we also have to understand the concept of a difference—what causes man to differ essentially from other animals. So again, we can see what Porphyry is saying here. He’s saying that we can’t make a definition unless we understand genus and difference. That’s where definitions come from. So this is an example of the problem that he’s seeking to solve in writing this Introduction.
He then goes on to mention division and demonstration. Division and demonstration—these are two fundamental logical operations. Division breaks down broader concepts into their parts, like dividing a genus into its species, dividing animal into rational and irrational. And that division is not random. That division is actually based on the essence of the thing itself, based on what an animal is, what the genus actually is. We can then determine by division what species belong to that genus. So it’s not just random divisions or organizing things however we please. It’s a true logical organization of things according to their essence. So it’s more complicated than it may seem, division and demonstration.
So we understand division: dividing wholes or classes into their parts. That’s division. And then demonstration is the operation whereby we prove conclusions from premises through valid syllogistic reasoning, which we’re going to learn as we study classical reasoning. So in order to understand division and demonstration, two important tasks that we have in logic, we’ve got to understand these Five Predicables.
So these Five Predicables—and I want to keep repeating this, because I really want you to get this into your thinking: genus, difference, species, peculiarity, and accident. These Five Predicables are the basic tools for all of these important logical operations.
A genus is a class, like animal. Difference is what distinguishes within that class the different members of the class. An example we just saw with animal was rational. Species is the result of combining genus with difference. So when we identify the differences that separate a genus into different smaller groups, those smaller groups are referred to as species.
Next, peculiarity is a unique property, a property that belongs to a thing in a unique way that distinguishes it from other things. But notice that this sounds like a difference, but it’s not the same thing as difference. A peculiarity is a unique property that belongs to all and only to members of a particular species. For example, the ability to laugh is presented by Aristotle and here by Porphyry as an example of a peculiarity. It’s something that’s unique to man, that will only be found within the species man, and it’s found in all members of the species man. But it’s not an essential quality. It’s not the difference that actually divides the genus, but it is a peculiar quality. Likewise, the ability of a dog to bark or for a horse to neigh—these are different examples of peculiarity. They’re unique characteristics, but they’re not defining characteristics. They’re not differences. Another of the predicables is peculiarity.
And then lastly, accident. Accident is a property that may or may not be present in a thing at different times, in different circumstances, and so on. For example, if we think of a dog, we could say that the dog is hot, or the dog is not hot. Let’s say the dog’s been running around. It’s sweating, panting—the dog is hot. We can predicate hotness of the dog at a certain moment, but at a later time, the dog cools down and relaxes and the hotness is no longer present with the dog. Hotness can come and go. The essence of the dog does not change. That kind of a quality that can be present or not be present and have no effect on the essence of a thing—that’s called an accident, something that can come and go.
So we have these Five Predicables with just an introductory understanding of what they are. The whole point of this book is to study these Five Predicables in detail. So don’t worry about understanding all that now. Just understand why it’s important to know the meaning of these five terms and how it will help us in the study of logic.
Porphyry comments and says that the theory of these is useful. He is explaining to us that it’s not merely an academic exercise, but this is really practical knowledge. This is useful for clear thinking and argumentation. So this is not some abstract philosophical study we do just for the sake of learning something that might be learned. This is actually, as we’ll see, and as I’ll try to emphasize, a study that’s very, very practical and useful in everyday life.
In fact, I tell my students that the study of Porphyry’s Introduction is really what separates learned people from unlearned people when we’re talking about classical education—the difference between people who have classical education and people who don’t, people who traditionally would be called learned and people who were unlearned. The difference is understanding these concepts and learning to recognize them in all different areas of life and thinking according to this system of the Five Predicables. So very important, very practical.
Moving on to the second part of the lesson, Porphyry says, “in a summary way I will briefly endeavor to discuss for you in the form, as it were, of an introduction, what has been delivered on this subject by the ancients”—that is, by men whom Porphyry considered to be ancients. He says, “abstaining from more profound investigations, but appropriately directing my attention to such things as are more simple.”
So Porphyry establishes his pedagogical method, his method of teaching. He says “in a summary way” and “briefly,” indicating that this is going to be an introductory treatment that serves a very specific end, namely, to prepare us for the study of Aristotle’s Categories. He’s not even pretending that this is some kind of exhaustive analysis of these subjects. It’s a brief introduction.
When he says “what has been delivered on this subject by the ancients,” we see that Porphyry sees himself as transmitting to his student established wisdom. He’s not creating some kind of new doctrine. He’s not an innovator. Doesn’t even consider himself to be a teacher in any real sense. He’s simply a tutor who’s sharing a knowledge of what the ancients have taught about these important subjects with his student. It shows the kind of humility that I talk about in the Classical Liberal Arts Academy, where we don’t see ourselves as innovators. We don’t see ourselves as the possessors of some kind of secret wisdom, but we’re simply tutors who are like more experienced students, who share the fruits of that experience with our students. It’s a humble approach that characterizes all good teaching.
When Porphyry refers to the ancients, he is really referring to Aristotle and his followers. That’s why he refers to them as Peripatetics. That was the name of Aristotle’s school of philosophy. The followers of Aristotle were called Peripatetics. It may include other Greek philosophers. He may pull some ideas from other influential Greeks, but primarily, he is sharing with his student what Aristotle and his followers themselves have to say about these Five Predicables so we can prepare our vocabulary to be appropriate for the study of Aristotle’s work.
It’s also important to see that he says that he will abstain from more profound investigations. Now, the reason why that’s important is because it gives us a signal that there’s a lot more to be said about these subjects than we’re going to read about in this work. This work has a very specific pedagogical function: to help a student prepare for the study of Aristotle’s Categories. These Five Predicables are very important for that study, but there’s a lot more to be said about them than is going to be discussed in this book. And he directs us to a more profound investigation. And when he says this, what he’s referring to is the science of metaphysics.
So if we want to understand—this is how all of our studies work together—if we really want to understand the Five Predicables, which are essential for a true understanding of the art of reasoning, we will have to study metaphysics. So we see how these different studies all collaborate and work together. And when we go through metaphysics, we’ll be sure to clarify all of these important topics and then use them to feed back into our study and reflection on Aristotle’s works in reasoning.
He acknowledges that there are deeper philosophical questions involved in this study, but he’s going to focus on, quote unquote, “such as are more simple,” because this is an introduction. And this reflects a sound principle in education or in teaching. We can learn not just this art of reasoning from these masters, but also how to teach—the art of teaching itself. Students need to master basic concepts before tackling advanced problems. That seems obvious, but what happens to many students is that they’ll take up the study of, let’s say, Aristotle’s Categories. They’ll start reading and they’ll say, “I don’t understand this. I don’t get it.” And they’ll act as if something is wrong, whereas what’s needed is a preparation for studies.
And parents often ask me, or adult students ask me, “Is it possible for me to begin the study of classical rhetoric or moral philosophy?” And I say it depends entirely on your comprehension level, whether you’re able to read and understand the language of the text. That’s really what it comes down to. It’s not that there is some certain skill that needs to be developed first. It’s just a matter of language. Do you know what these words mean? Do you understand these ideas that are necessary to comprehend what you’re going to be reading in this subject?
So it’s good for teachers—one of the goals of teachers is to go through a reading before students enter into it, gather out of that reading all of the important concepts that will need to be understood first, teach the students the meaning of those concepts, and then lead them through the study of the work. It also warns us of the danger of allowing others to define terms for us, because if the terms are defined incorrectly, it can have a significant effect—a significant negative effect—on our ability to understand what we read. We may interpret things falsely because we’ve learned definitions of terms that actually are not the intended meanings of those terms in the writing of a certain author. This is the danger of using modern dictionaries for classical studies.
So this important concept of defining terms and controlling who is defining terms is an important principle in good education. He says “appropriately.” He says that he is going to direct his attention appropriately to subjects that are more simple. So he suggests that this limitation that he’s making—it’s not some kind of defect. It’s actually appropriate and necessary. A proper choice is being given to his audience to serve a specific purpose. We need to respect his work and read it and appreciate it in light of the end that he has made very clear, not pretend this is intended to stand alone by itself as some kind of complete discussion of the Five Predicables, but it’s intended as an introduction for Aristotle’s Categories.
This restraint that we see in Porphyry, which is respectable—it’s a sign of humility, of expertise, of experience in teaching, and also of patience in teaching. We’re not going to pretend that we’re going to solve every problem here. We’re just focused on one specific task. This is something that we all struggle with in teaching and writing and learning—to restrict the scope or focus of what we say or what we write and be content to serve a part of a major task and to work patiently, one step at a time, knowing that there’s going to be another day for another lecture or another article, and we don’t have to try to make everything we write the solution to every problem in the world, which is how many teachers and writers approach every speech or article they compose. It’s a fault of inexperienced or arrogant or impatient teachers to go too far in an individual activity.
This restraint aligns in Porphyry with a scholastic principle—a principle of teaching in Scholastic philosophy—that logic serves as an instrument for other sciences, and that all of the sciences need to be studied on their own, but logic serves as an instrument for the other sciences and is not an end in itself. As Porphyry says, it’s useful. These are practically useful studies. They’re not just profound, speculative discussions. This is practical wisdom. This is useful in, as we’ll see, everyday thought and discussion.
In the third part of the lesson, Porphyry says, “My meaning is that I shall omit to speak about genera and species, whether they have a subsistence in the nature of things or have an existence alone in the mere conceptions of the soul; and if they have a subsistence in the nature of things, whether they are bodies or incorporeal, and whether they are separate from sensibles or in sensibles and about these have their subsistence. For a discussion of this kind is most profound.” Let’s respect this discussion. Porphyry says it requires another and greater investigation.
This really might be considered one of the most famous statements in the history of philosophy. Porphyry identifies three different metaphysical questions about universals, and he deliberately avoids them in this book, in this Introduction. So he identifies three fundamental questions which really become—or which are—most significant in understanding philosophy.
First of all, just to summarize these: Do genera and species—do universal concepts like animal and human—actually exist in reality outside of our minds? Do these things—do genera and species—exist in reality outside of our minds? Or are they just mental concepts that have been developed and established by men? Are these things greater than our minds and actually exist outside of them? Or are these things that are entirely made up by men? That’s an important metaphysical question, the basic question of whether universals are real or merely names that we use for things.
Second, if universals do exist in reality—that is, outside the mind, they actually do have some kind of existence—are they material bodies that exist, or are they some kind of immaterial substance? What are they if they do exist outside the mind?
And third, if they are real, do they exist separately from individual sensible things? Or do they exist within those sensible things? This is the difference between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. Plato said that these universal things are real and they exist separately from the individual sensible things which they are spoken of, whereas Aristotle said, no, they exist within sensible things. So very important concepts, and again, belonging to the study of metaphysics, which show us the difference between what Plato would say about these things and what Aristotle—who is the better philosopher—said about them as he corrected errors in Plato’s philosophy or perfected philosophy.
These questions—questions like these, these metaphysical questions—would later become central to all of the debates of the Middle Ages, where people disagreed on these things. Even among Protestants and Catholics, it wasn’t necessarily theology that they disagreed on. There were deeper disagreements. There were philosophical disagreements which disposed people to different theological positions. So in the study of the history of philosophy, we’ll hear about different groups of people. We’ll hear about realists and nominalists, conceptualists, and so on. These groups all relate to these questions which Porphyry mentions here in this opening chapter. Really significant passage in the history of philosophy, and shows us that Porphyry, back in the third century, was conscious of the importance of these distinctions. He was aware of philosophy in the broader sense and the controversial questions that needed to be solved.
So he pumps the brakes on those questions and says, “Look, we’re not going to settle those questions in this book. I’m just concerned with helping students prepare to study and understand Aristotle’s Categories.” And we see the wisdom in Porphyry as a teacher. His wisdom lies in recognizing that these are very profound questions. He doesn’t pretend that everything is easy or that he’s just so smart that he’s going to address every topic. He acknowledges that these are profound questions that require another, greater investigation. And as I said, he’s referring to the philosophy of metaphysics rather than logic.
Metaphysics is one of the branches of classical philosophy. Logic is actually another one of the branches—rational philosophy. The others would be moral philosophy and ethics, and then physics, which is part of natural philosophy. Metaphysics is the other part of natural philosophy. He keeps—Porphyry, that is—he keeps his logical investigation focused and accessible to his student. He doesn’t overwhelm his student. He doesn’t try to show off and pretend he’s so smart by talking about all kinds of lofty, far-off subjects and leaving his students in confusion.
He explains to his students, first of all warning them not to think more highly of themselves than they ought. They’re not great philosophers just because they go through this Introduction and have a sort of introductory knowledge of the Five Predicables. So he warns them that there’s more to learn to protect them from pride, and he focuses his study on specifically what’s needed for the present moment, which reveals his prudence and patience, which really come from experience in teaching. So he shows us his wisdom as a teacher, his concern for his student—that that’s the actual end of teaching, not to show off his feathers like a peacock, but to serve his student.
And this approach that he takes was influential in medieval education, where we find logic being studied before metaphysics in the curriculum. St. Thomas Aquinas would address these profound questions in his writings on metaphysics, following the teaching of Aristotle and holding that universals—just to be aware of what Thomas Aquinas taught on this subject—Thomas Aquinas taught that universals do exist in individual things, as Aristotle taught, and in the mind which abstracts them, but that they do not exist as Platonic forms. So Catholic philosophy was not Platonic but followed the teaching of Aristotle. I don’t want to go into that too much, though—just so you’re familiar with where Catholic teaching or Scholastic philosophy stands. That’s sufficient.
Let’s move on to the fourth and final part of this opening chapter. Porphyry says, “In what manner, however, the ancients and especially the Peripatetics discussed these and the other proposed objects of inquiry in a more logical manner, I will now endeavor to show you.”
So here, in this fourth part, Porphyry concludes by explaining what he is going to do. He explained what he’s not going to do in the third part. Now he explains what he is going to do. He refers to the ancients again—earlier Greek philosophers—but he specifically mentions the Peripatetics, the followers of Aristotle.
This word “Peripatetics” is a strange word. It’s worth understanding what it means. It literally means “those who walk around.” The word peripatein in Greek means to walk around. It’s very simple. If you think of a patio, it’s an area outside of a house where you can walk around. A peripatetic is one who walks around the patio, as it were. Aristotle was known to walk about while he talked, and so this characteristic of his teaching and the method that was imitated by his followers led to them being called the Peripatetics—those who walk about and teach. So that’s what he refers to. That’s what he means when he refers to the Peripatetics.
And it’s important for us to recognize that these—the followers of Aristotle—are the sources of the content of this book. What he’s going to say about the Five Predicables is coming from Aristotelian teaching, the Aristotelian tradition in philosophy. That’s important to clarify.
By focusing on how they discussed these concepts—these Five Predicables—in a more logical manner, as he says, Porphyry indicates that he’s going to treat the Five Predicables in this Aristotelian tradition as logical tools. That’s his concern: how the Five Predicables serve the study of logic, not as they are in the study of metaphysics—as metaphysical entities to be explored in speculative philosophy. So we’re focused on the Five Predicables not as metaphysical entities but as logical tools.
For this specific study, he’s going to examine how these terms function in reasoning, in making definitions, and in classifying things without getting into deeper questions about their ultimate reality—what they are in and of themselves. He says, “I will now endeavor to show you.” What he’s going to teach is going to be demonstrative. He’s going to show us, to prove to us the truth of this teaching. He’s not merely going to assert things as if he’s the authority. He’s going to show us what was signified by the use of these terms in Aristotelian philosophy. He’s going to provide examples and explanations to make these logical explanations clear for us.
This is what makes this study so useful, so valuable for our future study of logic. He’s going to provide, as I said, examples that prove to us that these are the true meanings of these terms as they are used by Aristotle. This approach that Porphyry takes was very successful. This is why, as I said, Porphyry’s Introduction was included in medieval sources on Aristotle all through medieval times. After the logical works of Aristotle were restored in Catholic study by the Scholastic philosophers, Porphyry’s Introduction was always included because it was recognized as being necessary for the right study of Aristotle’s logic.
This approach that Porphyry takes will allow students to master the logical use of these concepts before they encounter them in Aristotle’s writings, before they deal with them as complex metaphysical ideas. He’s preparing the student for the study of Aristotle’s Categories and is taking his knowledge of these concepts—of these Five Predicables—and is separating what directly relates to the study of logic from all other knowledge to make available to the student what’s necessary to move forward in the study of logic, and simply taking out of the way anything that would be unnecessary or distracting to the present purpose. A very valuable teaching resource, this Introduction by Porphyry.
And that brings us to the end of this first chapter.
Memory Work
Now to finish up, what I’d like to do is give you eight points that are worth memorizing, which summarize the most important concepts in the lesson. So eight points of memory work, which I’ll share with you right now.
- The Five Predicables are genus, difference, species, peculiarity, and accident. The subject of this book: The Five Predicables are genus, difference, species, peculiarity, and accident.
- Knowledge of the Five Predicables is necessary for understanding Aristotle’s Categories. Knowledge of the Five Predicables is necessary for understanding Aristotle’s Categories.
- The predicables are essential for forming definitions. The predicables are essential for forming definitions.
- Division and demonstration require understanding of the predicables. Division and demonstration require understanding of the predicables.
- Porphyry focuses on logical treatment rather than metaphysical questions. Porphyry focuses on logical treatment rather than metaphysical questions.
- The three avoided questions—the three metaphysical questions that Porphyry says he’s going to avoid—concern whether universals exist in reality, whether they are corporeal or incorporeal, and whether they exist separately or in sensible things. The three avoided questions concern whether universals exist in reality, whether they are corporeal or incorporeal, and whether they exist separately or in sensible things.
- The Peripatetics are the followers of Aristotle who developed logical methods. The Peripatetics are the followers of Aristotle who developed logical methods.
- Logic serves as an instrument for other philosophical investigations. Logic serves as an instrument for other philosophical investigations.
Conclusion
So in this lecture, we’ve studied Chapter One of Porphyry’s Introduction. We’vediscussed the Five Predicables. We’ve talked about Porphyry’s methodological approach to this study. We’ve talked about the three important metaphysical questions that he avoids in this book, and the distinction between logical and metaphysical investigations.
So now, having gone through all that, it’s time for you, the student, to reread and study this lesson for yourself, to develop your own understanding of the lesson and demonstrate that understanding through the graded assessments that are provided for you in the Academy’s Classical Reasoning course.
If you have any questions or need help with anything in this lesson, please visit the Academy Help Center at classicalliberalarts.com/support.
Once again, my name is William Michael, the headmaster of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy, and I hope that this lesson has been helpful.
God bless your studies.
Mr. William C. Michael, O.P.
Headmaster
Classical Liberal Arts Academy
