Correct Usage of Concepts & Terms in Reasoning

Since concept always points to itself, it follows that it is always one and the same regardless of the language
being used. For example, I cannot have a concept of a “table” when in fact I am referring to a chair, and vice versa.
Since this is the case, one important criterion for a reasoning to be called logical is that concepts are not
confused with one another. In Filipino, we commonly attribute the act of confusing and misinterpreting concepts
as pamimilosopo. An example would be clear: a mother called her son matigas ang ulo (hard-headed) because he is so
stubborn, but the son reacted that his head is just hard as anybody else, because no head is soft! The son here
confuses the concept of hard-headedness and that of having a hard head. Ergo, other than being called matigas ang
ulo, the mother adds that her son is also a pilosopo; that is, one who interprets things obscurely.
To aid us in pointing the error of reasoning due to confusion of concepts or terms, it is very important to know
what kinds of concepts or terms there are and the laws that govern their relationship with one another.

KINDS OF CONCEPTS AND TERMS

A. Inferior and Superior Terms
1. Inferior – is a term known as such because of its relationship with a superior term by way of specificity. That is, the
inferior is the specification of the superior term. If the superior term is animal, then inferior terms could be bird, fish,
deer, etc.
2. Superior – is a term known as such because of its relationship with the inferior term by way of generality. That is, the
superior term is the general concept of which the inferior term is a member. For example, if the inferior term
is bird or cat, then its superior term is animal. If the inferior term is Filipino, then the superior term is human being.

The general rule in dealing with superior and inferior terms is that what is true with a superior term may not be true
with an inferior term, but what is true with an inferior term is always true with a superior term.

This example is invalid:

He is a teacher.
Therefore he is a college instructor.
It does not follow that if one is a teacher (superior term) then one is also a college instructor (inferior term) since
one can be a teacher without being a college instructor.
But the reverse is valid:
He is a college instructor.
Therefore he is a teacher.

This one is incorrect:

If it is a reptile, then it is a snake.

This one, however, is correct:

If it is chicken, then it is a bird.

B. Concrete and Abstract Concept

1. Concrete – is a concept that presents to the mind an individual or a subject possessing a particular attribute
2. Abstract – is purely an attribute that does not present to the mind any subject or individual
Examples:
Concrete Abstract
animal “animality”
long “length”
white “whiteness”
human “humanness/humanity”
high “height”

In making statements using these concepts, one must remember that a concrete term cannot be predicated with an
abstract term, and vice versa.

For example:
These are incorrect:
The top of Mount Apo is height.
“The top of Mount Apo” is a concrete term while “height” is an abstract term.

Humanity is going around in circle.

If not considered as metaphor, this statement would be incorrect since, strictly speaking, “going around in circle”
(concrete) refers to someone so it cannot be affirmed of “humanity” (abstract term) which does not refer to anyone.
 The following examples commit the same error:
Drinking eight glasses of water a day is goodness.
Beauty harms people.
Love can kill you.

C. Absolute and Connotative

1. Absolute – a concept that presents into the mind a substance. A substance is something that is capable of existing on
its own as it is.
2. Connotative – a concept that presents into the mind something that presupposes a substance.

Examples:
Absolute Connotative
man lazy
sun luminous
wall white

Wall exists as a substance, but white does not. This means that we do not see white in itself; what we see is a white
wall or a white cloth or a white dress. So white presupposes an absolute concept (substance)
like wall or cloth or dress in order to exist. In the same way, we do not encounter lazy as it is, what we encounter is
a lazy person or a lazy animal. All adjectives are connotative.

One cannot make use of connotative concepts without presupposing absolute concepts.

For example, one cannot say:

The brown jumped over the lazy dog near the river bank, or

The big walked in the dark.

D. Unconnected Concepts
Concepts are unconnected if both of them are inferior that neither oppose nor include one another. They are called
unconnected because the truth value of one inferior term does not imply, or is not necessarily connected to, the truth
value of the other inferior term. For example, the statement “Some birds migrated” does not have anything to do with
the statement “Some zebras migrated” because what can be true to a bird may not be true to a zebra, both of which
are inferior to the term animal, so they are unconnected.

Hence, the general rule is that an inferior term cannot be inferred from another inferior term.

Here are examples which violate this rule:

He is bald.
Therefore, he is mute.

Filipinos are hospitable, so it follows that Canadians are hospitable also.

Some senators are lawyers; therefore, some congressmen are lawyers.

E. Connected Concepts
These are concepts so related to one another that one either exclude or include the other. There are various types of
connected concepts. These are:

1. Concepts that Include One Another

Examples of these concepts are synonymous terms, while others are an inferior term and a superior term. There are
also abstract concepts that are so related with one another that one cannot be thought without including the other.
Examples of these concepts could be justice and fairness, freedom and responsibility, etc. However, the question of
whether these abstract concepts are really related to one another is a philosophical problem and could not be dealt
properly here.

a. Synonymous terms
One may interchange a term with another synonymous term without changing the original meaning that one tries to
convey. So, if reasoning proceeds from one term to another synonymous term, it is valid.
Example:
Those who labor must receive credit.
 The reward must be in a form of ready money.
Therefore, those who work must receive cash.
There are three pairs of synonymous terms in this valid argument: “labor-work”, “credit-reward”, “ready money-
cash”.

b. Superior and Inferior terms

A superior and an inferior term include one another because both of them can be true in a substance or individual. For
example, something is both a bird and animal, and it would be impossible to be a bird without being an animal.
However, the extent of their inclusion to one another is only limited in that a superior term and an inferior term may
also not be true in a substance or individual. For example, something can be an animal but not a bird.

Hence, from this observation, we conclude that what is being affirmed to an inferior term cannot be denied to a
superior term, but not vice versa.

These examples are invalid:

That thing is a plane. So, it is not a vehicle.
That thing is a bird. Therefore it is a sparrow.

These examples, however, are valid:

That thing is a plane, so it is a vehicle.
That thing is a bird, so it may be a sparrow.

2. Concepts that Exclude One Another

These are concepts whose presence of one necessarily excludes the other although one cannot be realized without the
other.

These are the types of concepts that exclude one another:

a. Relative Concepts
They are called relative concepts because even if they cannot be simultaneously true in a substance or individual and
are also not opposed to one another, still one cannot be realized without the other. For example the
concepts husband and wife are relative concepts. Even if no one can be both a husband and a wife, and even
if husband and wife are not opposed to each other, no one can be called a husband without a concept of wife just as
nobody can be called a wife if there is no concept of husband.

Other examples:
parent – offspring
teacher – student
adviser – advisee
brother – brother/sister

Examples of incorrect statements using relative concepts:

I am your father but you are not my son.
Rex is a follower who does not follow anyone.
“Don Quixote is a lover without a loved one.”

b. Contrary Concepts
These are opposing concepts whose affirmation of one is necessarily a negation of the other, but whose negation of one
does not necessarily mean an affirmation of the other. For example, the concepts black and white are contrary
concepts, so that if something is black (affirmation), then that something cannot be white (negation); but, if
something is not black (negation), it does not necessarily mean that that thing is white (affirmation).

Other examples:
good – evil rational - irrational
light – darkness motivated - unmotivated
boy – girl intentional - unintentional
dead – alive logical – illogical

These are invalid arguments that use contrary concepts:

The font color is not black, so it is white.
If one is not a boy, then that one is a girl.
That thing is not alive. Therefore it is dead.
 Let us explain some of them. It does not mean that if one is not a boy then that one is already a girl since it is
possible that the one being referred to may not have any sex at all. Or, if a thing is not alive, it does not mean that it
is already dead; for example, we do not call a table or a chair or a stone dead although they are not alive.

c. Contradictory Concepts
These are opposing concepts whose affirmation of one necessarily entails negation of the other, and vice versa. For
example, black and non-black are contradictory concepts, so if something is black then it is not a non-black, or if
something is a non-black then it is not black.

Other examples:
life – lifeless
man – non-man
rational – non-rational
motivated – non-motivated

Sometimes, there is confusion between a negative contrary concept and a negative contradictory
concept. For example, one confuses between non-rational and irrational, or non-
motivated and unmotivated. Although these concepts appear to be analogous or synonymous still they are different.
That is, it does not mean that if one is non-rational, then that one is irrational, or if something is non-motivated, it
does not mean that it is unmotivated. But the reverse is not true: if something is dead, surely it is lifeless, or if
something is white, surely it is non-black.

Examples of invalid arguments because of confusion between contrary and contradictory concepts:

This life-form is non-male. So, it is a female.

The crowd is non-organized, so it is disorganized.
The feeling is painless; therefore it is pleasurable.

These examples, however, are valid:

The feeling is painful; therefore it is not pleasurable.
The crowd is organized, so it not disorganized.
The man is blind. Thus, he is sightless.

F. Univocal, Equivocal and Analogous Terms

Distinction between univocal, equivocal and analogous terms is important because it guides us in understanding
whether or not a discourse using any of these kinds of terms deserves merit. Usually, incorrect reasoning is brought
about by confusion on how the term is being used in a particular discourse.

Let us take this example:

Ilonggo: Magkadto ta karon. (We will go later)
Cebuano: Tara na! (Let’s go)
Ilonggo: Hambal ko karon lang. (I said we’ll go later)
Cebuano: Karon gani. Tara na! (You said “now”, so let’s go)

Karon in this discourse is equivocal. In one sense, it means “later”; in the other sense, it means “now”.
Thus, both the Ilonggo and and the Cebuano have ignorantly misinterpreted each other.

Consider another example:

Pastor: Let us give our hearts to God.
Child: Would I not die if I do it?
Pastor: Yes dear child, but to die in God means life.

Surely, the child and the pastor do not mean the same thing.

1. Univocal Terms
A term is univocal if it is used in a discourse twice or more but in exactly the same sense.
Examples:
My men are hungry, but your men were filled.
“Pablo” and “Yolanda” are strong typhoons.
Arroyo and Aquino were senators.

2. Equivocal Terms
A term is equivocal if it is used in a discourse twice or more in a completely different sense.
Examples:
 “Yolanda” is a typhoon and a girl.
Alexander is a man; the picture on the wall is a man.
A date is a time, but it is also a romantic appointment.

3. Analogous Terms
A term is analogous if it is used in a discourse twice or more in a sense that is partly the same and partly different.
Examples:
The examination test is also a test of character.
I am healthy; the farm is healthy.
The warriors who died in the battle are warriors of peace.

To prevent error in reasoning, it is very important that terms are used univocally. Otherwise, confusion could
arise.
Examples:
All persons are mortals. The picture on the wall is a person.
Therefore, the picture in the wall is mortal.

Warriors kill. The child who defeated cancer is a warrior.

Therefore, the child kills.

The person in the first example equivocal, while the warrior in the second is analogous, both of which commit
the same error.