The arte of logick Plainely taught in the English tongue, according to the best approued authors. Very necessary for all students in any profession, how to defend any argument against all subtill sophisters, and cauelling schismatikes, and how to confute their false syllogismes, and captious arguments. By M. Blundevile.

About this Item

Title: The arte of logick Plainely taught in the English tongue, according to the best approued authors. Very necessary for all students in any profession, how to defend any argument against all subtill sophisters, and cauelling schismatikes, and how to confute their false syllogismes, and captious arguments. By M. Blundevile.
Author: Blundeville, Thomas, fl. 1561.
Publication: London :: Printed by William Stansby, and are to be sold by Matthew Lownes,; 1617.
Rights/Permissions: To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Subject terms: Logic -- Early works to 1800.
Link to this Item: http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A16218.0001.001
Cite this Item: "The arte of logick Plainely taught in the English tongue, according to the best approued authors. Very necessary for all students in any profession, how to defend any argument against all subtill sophisters, and cauelling schismatikes, and how to confute their false syllogismes, and captious arguments. By M. Blundevile." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A16218.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 15, 2024.

Pages

Of the place of whole Integrall.

WHat is whole Integrall?

That which consisteth of parts hauing quantitie.

How may we reason from the whole to euery particular part?

Affirmatiuely, but not negatiuely, thus; It is a house: Ergo it hath foundation, walles and roofe: but you cannot reason so negatiuely from the whole to euery particular part, as to say thus; Here is an House: Ergo here is no foundation or walles.

What be the maxims of this place?

If the whole be, euery principall part must needs be: but if the whole be wanting, some principal part must needs be wan∣ting, though not all: for the house might be wanting, and yet the walles and foundation may still remaine.