Return to Aristotle, Prior Analytics
It also sometimes happens that one of the propositions being necessary, a necessary syllogism will be produced, yet not of either proposition casually, but of that which contains the greater extreme. For instance, it A is assumed to be present or not present with B from necessity; but B is assumed to be alone present with C; for the propositions being thus assumed, A will be present or will not be present from, necessity with C. For since A is present or is not present with every li from necessity, but C is something belonging to B, it is evident, that C will be from necessity one of these. If, however, the proposition A B is not necessary, but B C is necessary, there will not be a necessary conclusion. For if there will be, it will happen that A is necessarily present with a certain B, as may be demonstrated as well in the first as in the third figure. But this is false; for it may happen that B may be a thing of that kind that A may not be present with anything belonging to it. Farther still, from the terms also it is evident, that there will not be a necessary conclusion; as, for instance, if A is motion, B animal, and C man. For man is necessarily an animal; but neither animal, nor man, is necessarily moved. The like will also take place if A B is privative; for there is the same demonstration. But in particular syllogisms, if the universal assertion, is necessary; the conclusion also will be necessary; but if the particular is necessary; the conclusion will not be necessary; whether the universal proposition is privative, or categoric. In the first place, therefore, let the universal be necessary, and let A be necessarily present with every B, but let B be only present with a certain C. It is necessary, therefore, that A should be necessarily present with a certain C; for C is under B, and A was present from necessity with every B. The like will also take place, if the syllogism is privative; for there will be the same demonstration. But if the particular is necessary; the conclusion will not be necessary; for nothing A Bsurd will happen, as neither in universal syllogisms. A similar consequence also will be the result in particular privative syllogisms. Let the terms be motion, animal, white.
Every animal is moved:
It is necessary that something white should be an animal:
∴ Something white is moved.
But not necessarily because it is possible that it might not be moved.
No animal is moved:
It is necessary that something white should not be an animal:
∴ Something white is not moved.
But this is not necessary, because it may be moved.
Return to Aristotle, Prior Analytics
The lessons published on this site are freely available to read. If you wish to move from reading to formal study — with graded assessments, academic records, and the support of the Academy — you may enroll at any time. Enrollment is open year round, to students of all ages.
