A Tool That Guards Thought
Reasoning comes naturally, so why should anyone need rules for it? Avicenna's late logic answers in hints, and expects the reader to finish each argument alone.
Logic, the first method says, is a rule-giving tool whose observance keeps a person from going astray in thinking, which is the mind's move from what it already holds to what it does not. The book offers only principles and outlines, trusting a sharp reader to work them out. It watches words because thought travels in them, though in no one people's language, and it ends where the danger is greatest: confusions of sound and script, the vowel signs and dots that tell Arabic letters apart. Attend to meanings, not words, is its last advice.
- logic
- definition
- essence
- predication
- language
- semantics
- genus and species
- essential properties
- epistemology
Enter a dialogue
- Logic, you write, is a tool whose rules keep the mind from going astray. Why should reasoning, which comes naturally to us, need a tool at all?
- Your preface offers only principles and outlines, which a sharp mind will find easy to work out. Why write philosophy as hints rather than full arguments?
- Whoever learns these rules, checks each argument as an accountant checks a sum and still errs, you say, should leave philosophy. Is that a fair verdict?
- Your last advice is to attend to meanings, not to words. How often does an argument fail because a word seemed to say more than it meant?
- In Arabic, you note, the Qur'anic line "man is in loss" already speaks of every human. Why must a logician watch how each language says "all" and "some"?