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 7, 2024.

Pages

Of Priuatiues.
WHat be Priuatiues?

Priuatiues are two Contraries, belonging to one selfe Subiect, apt to receiue the same, in the which Subiect, when the one is wanting (at such time as Nature doth appoint) the other must needes be.

How may we reason from this place?

Two wayes: first, from Affirmation of the one to the deny∣all of the other, which is common to all Opposites, as thus, He is blind: Ergo, He seeth not. Secondly, you may reason from the denyall of the one to the affirmation of the other, thus: He cannot speake: Ergo, He is dumbe. But this kinde of Ar∣gument is not strong, vnlesse the thing required be applyed to

Page 109

his proper Subiect, and in such time as nature hath appointed, for it were no good argument to say thus: a sucking child can∣not speake: Ergo, he is dumbe; or thus, a whelpe of two daies old cannot see: Ergo, he is blinde: for nature commonly suf∣fereth not the childe to speake before it be two yeeres old, nor the whelpe to see before it be nine daies olde.

What be the maxims of this place?

If the one bee not in the Subiect apt to receiue the same at such time as nature hath appointed, the other must needs be.

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.