[380] = A.D. 1363. The numerals which accompany the written figures are equivalent to 6,527 and are meaningless.
[381] Published by Macmillans, 1912.
[382] Cf. Mr. H. W. B. Joseph’s Logic2, p. 548.
[384] Post. Anal. i. 2. 71 b 20.
[385] i.e. truth-claim.
[386] Cf. Formal Logic, p. 173.
[387] Mr. Alfred Sidgwick has been pointing out for the past twenty years how fatal this difficulty is to the traditional notion of formal validity; nor has any logician confuted his argument, or even shown that he apprehended its meaning and scope. It would seem, therefore, that the condition of formal logic is so precarious that its only chance of survival lies in hushing up all the vital objections to its stereotyped doctrines. But is not the policy of ignoring unanswerable objections the sure mark of a pseudo-science?
[388] The latest I have noticed occurs in Abercrombie’s Inquiries concerning the Intellectual Powers (1830); it reads very strangely now.
[389] Controversially the criticism of ‘self-evidence’ has been met in the same way as that of the ‘validity’ of the syllogism, i.e. by total silence.