LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

Urdaneta City University

URDANETA CITY UNIVERSITY
SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
COURSE SYLLABUS IN LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING

CHAPTER 1: PHILOSOPHY AND LOGIC: JUST WHAT THEY ARE

INTRODUCTION
A. What is Philosophy?

The term “philosophy” was invented by Pythagoras, a Greek philosopher, who noted that there are three types of
man: a lover of pleasure, a lover of success and a lover of wisdom; the last, according to him, is the superior type. The
word comes from the Greek philia, which means love, and sophia which means wisdom. Philosophy therefore,
literally means, “love of wisdom” where such wisdom pertains to the entire human endeavor of seeking the truth. It is
not a possession of wisdom but an incessant search for it. Pythagoras, as ancient tradition claims, thought that man
can never perfectly possess a comprehensive understanding of all that is meant by wisdom but is only in continuous
and ardent pursuit of it. As it is said, only God can be called wise. We can only be lovers of wisdom; we can never be
wise.

B. Philosophy, in its real definition, is the science of all things by their first causes as known in light of reason. We
shall now discuss this definition.

1. Philosophy as Science

The word science comes from the Latin verb scire, which means to know. Science, however, is not just any kind of
knowledge; it is a scientific knowledge. Now, a scientific knowledge is knowledge of causes of things. A man truly has
the science of something only if he has knowledge of its causes. To advance in one’s understanding, the “why” of
things must be addressed, not merely the “what”. The mere knowledge that ice is cold and that stone is hard, for
example, is not science. But the knowledge why ice is cold and why stone is hard is science. If we know only the fact,
then we have mere knowledge of it. If we know the reasons for the fact, then we have sceintific knowledge of it.

When a man knows the causes of things, he has attained certitude. Certitude is the natural result of knowing not
only the facts but also their causes. Now since scientific knowledge is knowledge of causes, it must, therefore, be
certain. It is not merely an opinion, a conjecture or a belief. Rather, it is a certain knowledge that results from an
analysis of causes of things. Will it therefore mean that all the findings of science possess certitude? No, we do not
mean to say this. What we only say is that certitude, and not mere probability, is what want to achieve. Astronomy,
for instance, has theories that are uncertain; nevertheless, astronomy is still regarded as a science because, unlike the
ancient mythologies, it aims at certitude and not merely at probable opinion or belief. It is impossible for any human
science that is still developing to arrive at certitude in its initial stage. The definition of science as cognito per causas
(a knowledge of things attained by an investigation of their causes) strictly applies only to science in its perfect, full-
blown stage.

In this regard, we can say that philosophy is a science because it seeks to acquire the knowledge of the causes of
things. It does not rest on opinion or mere belief but pursues the causes of things. Moreover, when philosophy
reaches its final stage and brings itself to perfection, it attains absolute certitude.

2. Philosophy as the Science of All Things

Philosophical enterprise deals with all intellectual endeavors. A subject matter of philosophy is so vast; it is
limited only by the capacity of the human mind to ask new questions and to formulate old ones in some novel way.

Philosophy is the science of all things. But what kind of things? Philosophy deals with concrete, real, contingent
things. Many are of the belief that philosophy deals only with the abstract that is beyond the physical. But this is
completely true. It is true that we make use of abstract concepts in philosophy but only to aid us in our understanding
of concrete things.

What is this concrete, real, contingent thing? It is a thing that is not self-existent. A being that is not self-existent
owes its existence to something other than itself. It is that which has its own cause for its existence. And this is
precisely what philosophy concerns itself with: not only that things are but also why things are. In the analysis of the1
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
definition of contingent being, it is only God that is excluded in its scope since by definition, God is considered a
Necessary Being, one whose existence depends on itself.

Philosophy is the science of all contingent things. Does this mean that God is outside the scope of philosophy?
Not at all! We have to understand that the main subject matter of philosophy is not God but contingent being, as only
a contingent being has its cause. But the consideration of God enters into the picture because contingent beings
cannot be understood without positing the existence of this self-sufficient Being we call God. The inclusion of God,
therefore, in this whole philosophical enterprise, arises “not on account of God, but on account of the whole
contingent world.”

3. Philosophy as Known in Light of Reason

Philosophy is the science of all things by their first causes known in light of natural reason. The italicized phrase
means that philosophy seeks the first causes of things as far as they can be rationally established by the human mind
unaided by Divine Revelation.

The branch of philosophy that deals with God is Natural Theology, a subject that is distinct from Revealed
Theology. The former studies God not by faith, but by reason alone; the latter treats of God not by reason, but by
faith. Natural Theology treats of contingent beings as its principal subject matter, and secondarily treats of God as the
first Cause of the existence of these contingent beings. Revealed Theology, on the other hand, treats of God as its
principal subject matter, and secondarily treats of contingent beings as His effects.

There is no opposition in the realms of Natural Theology and Revealed Theology. In fact, faith and reason can co-
exist. John Paul II, in his encyclical Fides et Ratio which was released in the middle of October 1998, treated of the
compatibility of faith and reason. He said: The fundamental harmony between the knowledge of faith and the
knowledge of philosophy is once again confirmed. Faith asks that its object be understood with the help of reason; and
at the summit of its searching reason acknowledges that it cannot do without what faith presents. (Fides et Ratio, 42)

A philosopher uses his power of logic, reason, perception and interpretation in order to make a more qualified
judgment about making the ‘leap of faith’ in a given direction. This does not eradicate the need for faith but rather
removes the uncertainty of which faith to accept, and gives the person some comfort that his faith is not unfounded.

C. Divisions of Philosophy

Philosophical inquiry is divided into major branches based on the objects they address. The discipline of
philosophy has traditionally been broken into six main branches or areas of study:

1. Metaphysics is the study of reality (beings and Being). Some of the questions that Metaphysics deals with are:

a.) What is the ultimate reality?

b.) Is reality one or many different things?
c.) Can reality be grasped by the senses or is it transcendent?
d.) What is a substance? What are accidents?

2. Epistemology is the study of validity of human knowldge. Among the questions that Epistemology deals with are:

a.) What is knowledge?

b.) Is knowledge acquired exclusively through the senses or by some other means?
c.) How do we know that what we perceive through our senses is correct?

3. Ethics is the study of the morality of human act. Some of the questions treated by the field of Ethics are:

a.) What is morally right?

b.) Are there any objective standards of right and wrong?
c.) Are moral values absolute or relative?

4. Logic is the study of correct reasoning. Logic is the basic tool that philosophers use to investigate reality. Among the
questions raised by Logic are:
2
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
a.) What makes an argument valid or invalid?
b.) What is a sound argument?
c.) What is the difference between truth and validity?

5. Cosmology is the science of the universe. Its questions are:

a.) What are space and time?

b.) How is the world related to human beings?
c.) Is the world created or has it been existing from all eternity?

6. Theodicy is a philosophical study of God. Questions it raises are the following:

a.) Does God exist?

b.) What are the proofs for God’s existence?
c.) What is the problem of evil?
d.) How do we reconcile the existence of a benevolent God and the unmerited misery in the world?

Within these broad divisions are a number of sub-disciplines of philosophy. The most fully developed of these is
Philosophy of Science. We also have Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of
Education, Philosophy of Art, and many others.

D. Method of Philosophy

Philosophy accomplishes knowledge of the world by means of human reason. This human reason is the method
used by Philosophy in inquiring about the nature of things. Her counterpart, Theology, treats God and the world on
the basis of a supernatural revelation. Even though Philosophy is a product of reason, it is not a creature of dangerous
rationalism, for reason itself is an integral part of man’s makeup.

E. Object and Goal of Philosophy

The object and goal of philosophy becomes clearer when it is compared with other sciences. Like them,
philosophy is knowledge of the cause of things, but in a very special way. For all other sciences are particular science
because they concern themselves with just a part of reality and look for the causes operative within the one restricted
area of the real. Philosophy, however, is a universal science because it considers the totality of reality and investigates
the basic causes of all beings. The aim of philosophy is not this truth or that truth, my truth or your truth, but “the
Truth.” The truth that philosophy searches for is a truth that applies to all people at all times. This truth has been
referred to as a transcendent truth.

Logic is defined as the science of correct reasoning. As a science, it is a body of information concerning
the different relations that arise in our mind when it knows things. The order that is reflected in our thought
and actions is characteristic of the operation of the intellect when it knows the truth. Man is naturally
ordered to correct thinking (natural logic); but he has a special need of scientific logic which is a systematic
and an ordered way of reasoning in order to examine his thought processes in difficult or controversial
cases.

Logic is not the foundation of philosophy or scientific knowledge; it is only its tools. By itself, it is
incapable of giving a comprehensive criterion of validity. It merely facilitates in organizing our ideas,
expressing them with more accuracy, and drawing from them some legitimate conclusions. Further, it equips
us with logical skills that are needed for intelligent and rigorous inquiry.

Logic is basically a theoritical science, even tough it includes some practical directions, as for example,
the rules of a good definition and rules of valid argument, among other things.

Formal Logic and Material Logic

3
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
Arguments must be good not only in form but also in content. Formal Logic, also called Symbolic Logic,
concerns itself primarily with the correctness rather than the truth of a logical process. It studies in detail
the form of the logical process, without focusing on the material content of the argument. To reason
correctly is not necessarily the same as to reason truthfully. Material Logic, on the other hand, is concerned
with truth of the material content. It considers the correspondence of the thought-contents with reality, a
correspondence between the logical and real order.

Informal Logic and Symbolic Logic

Around the end of the 19th century, Logic received renewed interest from the mathematicians in search
of a fundamental connection between logical and mathematical reasoning. Development of, and reaction
to, this line of inquiry led to two divergent lines of emphasis in the study of logic: Symbolic (or Formal) Logic
vs. Informal Logic (or Critical Thinking)

In a typical symbolic logic course, emphasis is placed on the precise symbolic representation of logical
concepts, the study of the abstract relationships between these concepts, and the systematization of these
relationships. In an informal logic or Critical Thinking course, the focus is instead on the application of
logical concepts to the analysis of everyday reasoning and problem-solving. Elements of symbolic logic will
frequently be involved, but only to the extent that it contributes to this practical objective.

Divisions of Logic

Logic is divided according to the three basic operations of human thought: simple apprehension,
judgment, and reasoning. Simple apprehension is the act by which the intellect grasps the essence of
something (apprehension because it lays hold of the the thing mentally; simple because the intellect merely
takes the thing in without any affirmation or denial about it). Judgment is a mental operation that
pronounces the identity or non-identity between two ideas. Reasoning is a mental act that proceeds from
the previously known truth to a new truth.

All other mental operations (such as dividing, comparing, abstracting, etc.) may involve any or all of these
basic mental operations.

Method of Logic

The method employed in logic is reflexive. The knowing process does not have its starting point in the
acquisition of ideas and then, grasping realities afterwards. Rather, the human intellect gets in touch with
reality, and then focuses its attention on the knowing process itself. This act is called logical reflection. The
proposition “A rose is a flower”, for instance, is called knowledge of the first intention for it refers to the
initial movement of the mind. When the mind reflects on this knowledge and says, “A rose is a flower”, it
acquires the reflexive knowledge known as the second intention. Logic is primarily concerned with relfexive
knowledge which constitutes its object.

Logic: The Art of Reasoning

The name Logic was introduced by Zeno the Stoic (about 300 BC). Logic, in the broadest sense, is the
study of the principles and rules of distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning. It was Aristotle (384-322
BC) who laid the foundations of the science by treating logical questions separately from other parts of
philosophy. Not only is Logic a science; it is also an art. Art is the power to perform certain actions guided by4
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
special knowledge and executed with skill. Logic, as an art, helps us to do just that: it directs the reasoning
process in order that man may acquire knowledge of the truth in an orderly way, with ease and without
error. Logic is also consdered ars artium for it is used in every theoretical and practical endeavor. As an art,
Logic is tasked to allow ideas to shine forth with a wholly new profundity and power and to reflect the
ultimate secrets of reality in our creative thinking . Equipped with reasoning skills and acquired habit, the
mind can perform operations with much facility.

CHAPTER 2: SOUNDNESS AND VALIDITY

We always construct arguments in our daily discussion with people. It is necessary, therefore, to make
sure that our arguments are sound and valid to avoid verbal disagreements. In this chapter, we will study
the concept of valid and sound argument. We will examine the very important distinction between truth
and validity of an argument.

The Nature of an Argument

An argument is an inferential thinking composed of conclusion and premise(s) from which the
conclusion is inferred. Take this example:

Anything that is created has a cause;

But, human beings are created;
Therefore, human beings have a cause.

5
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
The conclusion, “Human beings have a cause,” is inferred from the two premises “Anything that is
created has a cause” and “Human beings are created”. Every argument is composed of a conclusion and one
or more premises from which the conclusion is deduced.

Arguments can be of two kinds: inductive and deductive. The widespread distinction between induction
as an inference moving from specific facts to general conclusions, and deduction as moving from general
premises to specific conclusions is no longer definitive. This distinction simply differentiates one kind of
induction from one kind of deduction. It is much more satisfactory to think of induction as probable
inference and deduction as necessary inference.

A deductive argument can be considered valid or invalid, sound or unsound. Validity is a property of
deductive arguments, which are sets of statements. Inductive arguments are described as “strong” or
“acceptable” but never as “valid or sound.” Validity is not a property of individual statements. Individual
statements are true or false. Statements, therefore, are not valid; arguments are not true. A deductive
argument is generally past or present-oriented, and its premises are assumed to be true. It draws from
general information then extracts a specific conclusion which proves the past or present truth.

Example:

All drug dependents are mentally-deranged people;

And Louie is drug-dependents;
Therefore, Louie is mentally-deranged.

An inductive argument is generally future-oriented. It first gathers specific information, then draws a
general conclusion which predicts what the future can be.

Example:

Five thousand drug-addicts tested are criminals.

Therefore, I predict that in the future if you find a drug-addict he is sure to be a criminal.

Valid and Invalid Arguments

Validity in Logic is technical term that applies only to the reasoning of arguments, not to the premises or
conclusion. Hence, propositions are referred to as true or false. Arguments are referred to as valid or invalid.
In Logic, there is no such thing as a “valid premise” or a “true argument.”

A deductive argument is said to be valid when the conclusion is true because of the true premises. In a
valid argument, it is logically impossible that the premises of an argument are true and the conclusion false.
Validity, therefore, has a hypothetical nature: the conclusion is true only when the premises are. Notice that
the validity of the inference of a deductive argument is independent of the truth of its premises, and both
conditions must be met in order to guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Here are the various
combinations of arguments:

A. True Premises, True Conclusion

1. Valid (sound)
For example:Musicians are artists;
Violinists are musicians;
.·. Violinists are artists.

2. Invalid (unsound)
6
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
For example:Fruits are nutritious;
Apples are nutritious;
.·. Apples are fruits.

B. True Premises, False Conclusion

3. Invalid (unsound)
For example:Pianists are musicians;
Violinists are musicians.
.·. Violinists are pianists.

C. False Premises, True Conclusion

4. Valid (unsound)
For example:Dogs are artists;
Painters are dogs;
.·. Painters are artists.

5. Invalid (unsound)
For example:Musicians are guitarists;
Violinists are guitarists;
.·. Violinists are musicians.

D. False Premises, False Conclusion

6. Valid (unsound)
For example:Dogs are birds;
Cats are dogs;
.·. Cats are birds.
7. Invalid (unsound)
For example:Dogs are birds;
Cats are birds;
.·. Cats are dogs.
Here’s the summary of all the possible combinations:

PREMISES CONCLUSION INFERENCE

1. True True Valid
2. True True Invalid
3. True False Invalid
4. False True Valid
5. False True Invalid
6. False False Valid
7. False False Invalid

The seven arguments presented above give us the following general principles of Logic in summarized
form:
 True premises do not guarantee validity. (proven by cases #2 and #3 in the table above)
 A true conclusion does not guarantee validity. (proven by cases #2 and #5) 7
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
 True premises and a true conclusion together do not guarantee validity. (proven by case #2)
 Valid inference does not guarantee conclusion. (proven by case #6)
 False premises do not guarantee invalidity. (proven by cases #4 and #6)
 A false conclusion does not guarantee invalidity. (proven by case #6)
 False premises and a false conclusion together do not guarantee invalidity. (proven by case #6)
 Invalid reasoning does not guarantee a false conclusion. (proven by cases #2 and #7)

What we have thus far discussed leads us to a very crucial point in Logic: Validity has to do with the
logical connection between premises and conclusion, not with the actual truth or falsity of the premises.

Truth, Validity and Soundness

Given the nature of logic we can say that reasonable people can disagree, rational people can reason
impeccably and still be downright wrong, arguments with false premises can be valid, valid arguments can
have false conclusions, and invalid arguments can have true premises and true conclusion. If you can be
wrong after being logical and right after being illogical, why be logical?

We have established that a valid argument may have false (or even totally absurd) premises, thereby
failing to establish the truth of its conclusion. A valid argument is not necessarily a sound argument for if at
least one of the premises is false, one does not have the guarantee that the conclusion is true. A sound
argument is one that is both valid and has true premises; all others are unsound. Truth and validity,
therefore, are combined in the concept of soundness. Take a look at this diagram.

SOUND/
PREMISES CONCLUSION INFERENCE
UNSOUND
1. True True Valid Sound
2. True True Invalid Unsound
3. True False Invalid Unsound
4. False True Valid Unsound
5. False True Invalid Unsound
6. False False Valid Unsound
7. False False Invalid Unsound

Here’s the summary, in a diagram, of what we have thus far discussed.

Proposition True

False
Sound
Deductive argument Valid
Unsound
Invalid

Sound argument = Valid argument + all true premises

By attacking an argument, therefore, one can only establish that it is unsound but one cannot show that
the conclusion is false (for an unsound argument can sometimes have a true conclusion). On the other
hand, by presenting a sound argument, one can establish that the conclusion of the argument is true. Thus,
8
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
to construct a sound argument, a high level of intelligence coupled with verified data is of great importance.
After all, anything rewarding requires preserverance and wit.

Now, the answer to the question: why be logical? While two people can agree on the validity of
reasoning and still come to different conclusions by disagreeing on the truth status of the information in the
premises, this does not mean that logic is useless; rather, it shows that often the world is complicated and
that arriving at truth or consensus is not easy. Logic does not promise remedy to conflicting opinions about
what is right or wrong, true or false; however, it can be a valuable tool in locating genuine disagreement and
showing where further investigation is needed.

CHAPTER 3: IDEAS AND TERMS

In this chapter, we focus our inquiry on the first mental operation. Simple apprehension, the first mental
operation, is the process of grasping or abstracting the essence of a thing without affirming or denying
anything about it. Its mental product is called idea the verbal manifestation of which is called term.

Idea

As an oft-repeated line says, “there is nothing in the intellect that does not pass first through the
senses.” Ideas begin with sense data; the sense organs accept a number of impressions from the great
number of stimuli coming from the external world. An image then is produced. The image itself is not to be
understood as an unconscious representation of the attributes of things; rather, it is a conscious experience
in which the conditions of the external world are somehow reflected. Our images refer to the sensible
aspects of reality, and by abstraction performed by the intellect, the essential elements are separated from
the sensible qualities and thereby forming an idea of the thing sensed.
9
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
An idea, therefore, is abstract because it focuses only on the nature or essence it signifies and leaves
aside the concrete, sensible characteristics of that thing. An idea is a mental sign whereby we grasp the
essence of a thing. Obviously, the idea is found in the mind, not in things. The concept of “dog” is found in
the mind of the one who understands the nature of a dog. The mental operation by which we grasp the
essence of a thing without yet making a statement about it is called simple apprehension whose products is
a term.

Term

Since ideas are abstract, there should be a way to express them for communication purposes. Term is
the verbal manifestation of the ideas. It is defined as a conventional sign that is expressive of an idea. Let’s
analyze the definition of a term:

 It is a sign. A sign is something that leads to the knowledge of something else. For a sign to be able to
carry out its task there must be a recognizable connection between it and the reality it designates. In
this case, to take something as a sign of something else is to use it to infer the presence of the other
thing. This way, a term is a sign of ideas in the mind of the person producing them. The term table, for
example, is the sign of the idea table in my mind.

 It is a conventional sign. Conventional sign is contrasted with natural sign. It is a natural sign if the
connection with the object it represents is given by nature itself such as the crying of a baby as an
expression of pain, or heavy dark clouds as a sign of rain to come. It is a conventional sign if the
connection is arbitrarily set by people such as the picture of a man with a shovel on the roadside
indicating the presence of road works or the skull in a bottle indicating that the content is poisonous. A
term is a conventional sign since it is a result of a common agreement among men. We call an object
table because it is a term agreed upon by the people. Of course we may call it arikitik, for example, if we
agree to name it that way.

 It is expressive of an idea. Since an idea is abstract, it is made concrete through the use of a term.
Thanks to terms because through them we are able to articulate our thoughts.

Connotation and Denotation

Connotation and Denotation are the logical properties of terms. A term connotes something when it
indicates the meaning of something; it denotes something if it refers to something.

Connotation refers to the group of characteristics essential to a term. It is also known as intention,
signification, or comprehension. Denotation, on the other hand, is the set of things to which the term refers.
It is also known as extension. The connotation of a musician, for instance, is a person who plays a musical
instrument or is musically gifted. This set of words constitutes the essence of all those persons to whom the
term musician applies. Its denotation would be Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Cayabyab, Manicad, among other
musicians.

The connotation and denotation of a term are inversely proportional, i.e., as the connotation increases
its denotation decreases and vice versa. When the connotation increases, the number of subjects referred
to are reduced. When the denotation increases, the essential elements or characteristics are lessened. If we
include in our connotation of musician the foreign, the denotation decreases for it excludes local musicians.
And if we add the term young, it further decreases the denotation for it excludes the old musicians. If the
processis reversed by increasing the denotation, this time, the connotation deacreases.

Although most terms have both connotation and denotation, proper names (like Napoleon Bonaparte,
Philippines, Statue of Liberty, Sampaguita, William Tell, etc.) have only denotation since they lack
10
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
connotation expressing attributes to define them. Other terms such as unicorn and centaur have
connotation for there are such attributes, but lack denotation since they are non-existent.

Classification of Terms

A. According to Comprehension

1. Simple - it expresses only one conceptual note. Examples:

truth - conformity between the intellect and the thing

being - an existential thing
falsity - non-conformity between the intellect and the thing

2. Compound - it expresses more than one conceptual note. Examples:

Man may be expressed as - rational animal, human being, person or a supposit

God may be expressed as Infinite, Prime Mover, Intelligent Designer or a Uncaused Cause

3. Concrete - it expresses something which has attributes that can be perceived through the senses.
Examples:

ball, can, desk, shirt, stone, table

4. Abstract - it expresses something as separated from any single object. It is a pure idea expressed in
words. Examples:

truth, happiness, height, knowledge, perfection

Our idea of a stone, for instance, is obtained through the exercise of our senses. But we may
abstract its qualities such as hardness, roundness, heaviness and regard them as separate from the
thing itself. It is likewise important as well as interesting to note that an idea may be concrete in one
sense and asbtract in another. In this example: Claire wears a precious gem. Gem is a concrete term. But
in this example: Claire is a gem of the University, the term becomes abstract.

B. According to Extension

1. Singular - it represents a single object only. Examples:

Thailand World War II

Cardinal Luis Antonio G. Tagle my father
author of Les Miserables this chair

2. Universal - it represents not only a class as a whole but also each member of the class. Examples:

table, chair, stone, plant, glass, pen, girl

3. Particular - it represents only a part of the universal whether it is definite or indefinite. Examples:

many books few guests

some kings several trees

4. Collective - it represents a number of things constituting a unit-group or whole. Examples:

family, choir, band, fleet, team, society

11
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
C. According to Origin

1. Immediate - (intuitive) it is formed from the direct perception of things. Examples:

chair, whistle, chirping of birds, falling rain, doll

2. Mediate - (abstractive) it is formed through the mediation of other ideas. Examples:

God human soul

life of Rizal philosophy

D. According to Relation

1. Compatible - terms that can co-exist in a subject. Examples:

wise and good rich and famous

hot and spicy young and restless

2. Incompatible - terms that cannot coexist in a subject. They exclude each other. There are four kinds
incompatible ideas:

a. Contradictory - terms that mutually exclude each other such that the affirmation of one is the
denial of the other. Between these two terms, there is no third (middle) ground. Examples.

just - unjust legal - illegal

good - not good valid - invalid

b. Contrary - terms that express extremes belonging to the same class. Between these two terms,
there is a third (middle) ground. Examples:

rich - poor (average) beautiful - ugly (fair)

hot - cold (lukewarm) fast - slow (moderate)

c. Privative - two opposed ideas, one of which expresses perfection, and the other its lack which
ought to be possessed. Examples:

sight - blindness (With regard to man, blindness is a privation; with reference to a book,
however, it is a mere negation.)

truth - error hearing - deafness

walking - lame good - evil

d. Correlative - two opposed terms that bear mutual relation to one another such that one cannot
be understood without the other. They imply each other because one depends on the other.
Examples:

cause - effect husband - wife

whole - part parent - child

E. According to Meaning

1. Univocal - a term that carries the same meaning in its several uses. Examples:

Animal when predicated of dog and cat has exactly the same meaning.

Polygon when predicated of a triangle and a square has exactly the same meaning. 12
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University

2. Equivocal - a term that carries different meanings in its different uses. The term may be equivocal.

a. only in pronunciation

dew and due ill and eel

soar and sore peak and pick
reign and rain herd and heard

b. in pronunciation and spelling

ground means surface of the earth, or motive, or past tense of grind

trunk of a tree, of a car, of an elephant, etc.
hunk means a very large person, a sexually attractive man, a slab, a chunk

3. Analogous - a term that carries meaning in some ways the same and in other ways different.
Examples:

“God exists;” is different from “Man exists;” for the existence of God is not the same as the
existence of man; neither is it absolutely different.

Head does not have the same meaning in head of the family and head of a man.

uncomfortable truth
betrayed trust
bad days

F. According to Quality

1. Positive in form, positive in meaning

Examples: life, justice, truth, freedom

2. Positive in form, negative in meaning

Examples: death, evil, error, sin, cruelty

3. Negative in form, negative in meaning

Examples: illegal, impolite, incompetent, dishonest

4. Negative in form, positive in meaning

Examples: immortal, infinite, blameless, independent

G. According to Object

1. Real - it expresses something that has existential actuality, whether positive or negative. Examples:

clarity scandal chair

temperance unemployment table

2. Logical - it is used as a conceptual device to facilitate learning. Examples:

subject classification phyla 13

MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
predicate division genera

3. Imaginary - it has no correspondencd in reality but is merely a fabrication of the mind. Examples:

spider man flying carpet batman

Darna talking tree catwoman

CHAPTER 4: PREDICAMENTS AND PREDICABLES

Universal concepts can be considered both according to their content (predicaments), and according to
the nature and way in which they can be applied to the objects that fall under them (predicables).

While the arrangements of concepts according to their content lead ultimately to predicaments
(categories), the concepts according to their mode of expression constitute five classes which are called
predicables. Since our thinking first of all advert to the content and only after some reflection to the mode
of expression, the predicaments are called first intentions while the predicables are called second intentions.
Let’s have a detailed presentation of these two concepts.

Predicaments

Predicaments refer to the set of fundamental ideas in terms of which all other ideas can be expressed.
They are concepts capable of classifying all other concepts; they are the basic manners of being to which all
reality can be reduced. Aristotle called them categories and enumerated ten of them. Before discussing
each one of the predicaments in detail, we can show a brief reference to them with these examples.
14
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
We can say of Clifford, for example:

He is a man (substance)
He is intelligent (quality)
He is 5’ 6’’ tall or He is 150 kgs. (quantity)
He is the brother of John (relation)
He is in the school canteen (where)
He is sitting (posture)
He is in school uniform (habit)
He came in at 1:00 in the afternoon (when)
He is eating his lunch (action)
He is deeply hungry (passion)

A. (1) Substance - it is that which has its existence not in another but in and for itself. It has meaning
and value in itself. Thus, in contrast to the accidents, it can be defined without reference to a
subject. Examples:

plant dog man

chair table tree

B. Accident - it refers to everything added to a substance as a further determination. There are nine
accidents.

2. Quantity - the modification of a substance as regards the effect of having extension and
divisibility. Examples:

50 kilograms 25 feet long

1000 pesos 200 square meters

3. Quality - formal determination of a substance which may be a habit, disposition, capacity or the
form and figure of a thing. Examples:

intelligent hot form of a statue

red soft figure of a woman

4. Relation - the manner in which substances refer to each other. Examples:

father teacher
ruler husband

5. Action - production of an effect in another. Examples:

running swimming sleeping

walking dancing jogging

6. Passion - reception of an effect from another. Examples:

being killed are burned

was shot being accepted

7. When (Time) - situation in time. Examples:

at 8 a.m. today tomorrow

now last time next week

8. Where (Place) - positin or localization of the substance in space. Examples: 15

MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University

here at home
in the office Urdaneta

9. Posture - determination of the substance as to the disposition of its parts. Examples:

lying standing squatting

sitting stooping slanting

10. Habit - determination of the substance as to the external appearance or outfit. In the strict
sense, only persons are capable of having a habit; thus, habit properly speaking, is exclusive to
man. Examples:

bemoustached clothed in black suit

In red gown covered with lace

Predicables

Predicables refer to the kinds of relations which may be obtained between a term and the subject of
which it is predicated. There are five predicables: genus, specific difference, species, property and logical
accident.

1. Genus - a universal idea which expresses a part of the essence of a thing, that part which is
common with other species in the same class. It answers the question, What is it? It signifies a
common nature, some one thing which all things grouped together have in common. Examples:

Man is an animal.
A pentagon is a polygon.
Hammer is a tool.

2. Specific Difference - a universal idea which expresses a part of the essence of a thing, that part
which differentiates it from that of other species. It answers the questions, What differentiates this
species from others? It is what naturally separates those under genus. Examples:

Man is rational.
A pentagon is five-sided.
Hammer is used for pounding nails.
3. Species - a universal idea that expresses the complete essence of a thing. It is constituted by
adding the specific difference to the genus; the genus is predicated of the species but not
conversely. Examples:

Man is a rational animal.

A pentagon is a five-sided polygon.
Hammer is a tool used for pounding nails.

4. Property - a universal idea that expresses an attribute that belongs to the thing by natural
necessity. It is not a part of the essence of the thing, yet it belongs to that thing and to it alone all
the time. Although property is not essential to the thing, it still belongs to it necessarily. Examples:

Man is capable of learning grammar, of thinking, of morality, of laughter.

Water freezes at 32°C; boils at 100°C.
Triangle has angles that add up to 180°.

16
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING
Urdaneta City University
5. Logical Accident - a universal idea that is not a part of the essence of a thing but something that
belongs to the thing, not by natural necessity, but by contingency, i.e. that something is but need
to be. Examples:

Andrew is tall, intelligent and kinky-haired.

The cell phone is SE990i.
The bridal gown looks elegant.

17
MR. RYAN C. BUADO Instructor Social Science Department