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 the place of Difference.

THis place is comprehended vnder the place of definition, for dif∣ference is a good part of the definition, and yet for order sake I haue thought good to place it next to the generall kinde and speciall kinde before taught.

How may a man reason from this place?

Both affirmatiuely and negatiuely, as an Oyster hath fee∣ling: Ergo it is a sensible body, a horse hath no reason: Ergo he is no man.

What be the maximes in this place?

Whatsoeuer agreeth with the speciall difference, agreeth with the thing that hath that difference, and whatsoeuer disa∣greeth with the speciall difference, disagreeth with the thing that hath that difference, for they be conuertible.