Universa Philosophia
Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza (1578–1641)
First published 1624
Hurtado de Mendoza, Universa Philosophia (Lyon 1624): the Summulae and the Logica through Disputatio VII, with an original English translation. The rest of the work follows in later append batches.
✦ This work is being completed — add a section.
Summulae
Instruction for the Beginner on the Method of Argument
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
Disputatio I. On the Terms of Propositions, and Their Union.
Aristoteles primo Physicorum
Sectio I. What Are Subject, Predicate, and Union?
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
Sectio II. The Definition of Terms.
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
§ 12
§ 13
§ 14
§ 15
§ 16
§ 17
§ 18
§ 19
§ 20
Sectio III. On Vocal, Written, and Mental Terms.
§ 21
§ 22
§ 23
§ 24
§ 25
§ 26
Sectio IV. On Significant and Non-Significant Terms.
§ 27
§ 28
§ 29
§ 30
§ 31
§ 32
§ 33
§ 34
§ 35
Signum significativum ad placitum
Sectio V. Divisions of the Mental Term.
§ 37
§ 38
§ 39
§ 40
§ 41
§ 42
§ 43
Sectio VI. On Universal, Particular, Confused, and Determinate, Superior, and Inferior Terms.
§ 44
§ 45
§ 46
§ 47
§ 48
§ 49
§ 50
§ 51
§ 52
§ 53
§ 54
§ 55
§ 56
§ 57
§ 58
§ 59
§ 60
§ 61
§ 62
§ 63
§ 64
§ 65
§ 66
Sectio VII. On Transcendent and Non-Transcendent Terms.
§ 67
§ 68
Sectio VIII. On Univocal, Equivocal, and Analogous Terms.
§ 69
§ 70
§ 71
§ 72
§ 73
Sectio IX. On Absolute and Connotative Terms.
§ 74
§ 75
§ 76
§ 77
§ 78
§ 79
§ 80
§ 81
§ 82
§ 83
§ 84
§ 85
§ 86
§ 87
Sectio X. On Categorematic and Syncategorematic Terms.
§ 88
Dices categorematicos significare
§ 90
§ 91
§ 92
Sectio XI. Concrete, Abstract, Complex, and Incomplex; Copulative and Non-Copulative Terms.
§ 93
§ 94
§ 95
§ 96
§ 97
§ 98
§ 99
§ 100
§ 101
§ 102
§ 103
Sectio XII. On Negative and Non-Negative Terms: Contrary and Contradictory.
§ 104
§ 105
§ 106
§ 107
§ 108
Sectio XIII. On Terms of First and Second Intention: Pertinent and Impertinent.
§ 109
§ 110
§ 111
Disputatio II. On the Properties of Terms.
Sectio I. On Supposition.
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
Sectio II. Formal and Material Supposition.
§ 11
§ 12
Sectio III. Simple and Personal Supposition.
§ 13
§ 14
§ 15
§ 16
§ 17
§ 18
§ 19
§ 20
Sectio IV. Common and Singular Supposition.
§ 21
§ 22
§ 23
Sectio V. Distributive, Copulate, Determinate, Natural, and Accidental Supposition.
§ 24
§ 25
§ 26
§ 27
§ 28
§ 29
§ 30
§ 31
§ 32
Sectio VI. On Ascent and Descent.
§ 33
§ 34
§ 35
§ 36
§ 37
§ 38
§ 39
§ 40
§ 41
§ 42
Sectio VII. On Ampliation, Restriction, Alienation, and Diminution.
§ 43
§ 44
§ 45
§ 46
§ 47
§ 48
§ 49
Sectio VIII. On Appellation.
§ 50
§ 51
§ 52
Disputatio III. On Speech, Its Parts, and Division.
Sectio I. On the Noun.
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
Sectio II. On the Verb.
§ 12
§ 13
§ 14
§ 15
§ 16
§ 17
§ 18
Sectio III. On Speech.
§ 19
§ 20
§ 21
Disputatio IV. On the Proposition.
Sectio I. I Define the Proposition.
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
Sectio II. On the Matter, Quality, and Quantity of the Proposition.
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
Sectio III. Categorical, Hypothetical, Complex, and Incomplex Propositions.
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
§ 12
Sectio IV. On the Equipollence of Simple Propositions.
§ 13
§ 14
Sectio V. On the Conversion of the Simple Proposition.
§ 15
§ 16
§ 17
§ 18
§ 19
Sectio VI. On the Opposition of the Simple Proposition.
§ 20
§ 21
§ 22
§ 23
Sectio VII. The Preceding Doctrine and the Rules of Opposites Explained.
§ 24
§ 25
§ 26
§ 27
§ 28
§ 29
§ 30
§ 31
§ 32
§ 33
Sectio VIII. On the Modal Proposition.
§ 34
§ 35
§ 36
§ 37
Sectio IX. Modal Propositions Explained and Described.
§ 38
§ 39
§ 40
§ 41
Sectio X. Why Are All Propositions of Each Figure Mutually Equipollent?
§ 42
§ 43
§ 44
§ 45
§ 46
Sectio XI. On the Quantity and Quality of Each Figure.
§ 47
§ 48
§ 49
§ 50
Sectio XII. On the Opposition of Each Figure to the Others.
§ 51
§ 52
§ 53
§ 54
§ 55
§ 56
§ 57
§ 58
§ 59
§ 60
Sectio XIII. On Exponible and Exclusive Propositions.
§ 61
§ 62
§ 63
§ 64
Sectio XIV. Difficulties Concerning This Doctrine.
§ 65
§ 66
§ 67
§ 68
§ 69
§ 70
§ 71
§ 72
§ 73
§ 74
Sectio XV. On Exceptive and Reduplicative Propositions.
§ 75
§ 76
Disputatio V. On the Method of Knowing.
§ 1
§ 2
Sectio I. On Definition.
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
Sectio II. On Division.
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
§ 12
Sectio III. On Argumentation.
§ 13
§ 14
§ 15
§ 16
§ 17
§ 18
Sectio IV. On the Mode and Figure of the Syllogism.
§ 19
§ 20
§ 21
§ 22
§ 23
§ 24
§ 25
§ 26
§ 27
Sectio V. Ostensive Deduction of Syllogisms.
§ 28
§ 29
§ 30
§ 31
§ 32
§ 33
§ 34
§ 35
Sectio VI. Deduction of Syllogisms to the Impossible.
§ 36
§ 37
§ 38
§ 39
§ 40
§ 41
§ 42
§ 43
§ 44
§ 45
§ 46
§ 47
§ 48
Sectio VII. On Consequence.
§ 49
§ 50
§ 51
§ 52
§ 53
Some Terms Explained.
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
§ 12
Logic
Disputatio I: Disputatio I. On the Object of Logic.
Sectio I. On Object and Subject in General.
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
§ 12
§ 13
Sectio II. The Adequate Matter of Logic.
§ 14
§ 15
§ 16
§ 17
§ 18
§ 19
§ 20
Sectio III. Whether Words Are the Object of Logic?
§ 21
Subsectio I. Words are not the adequate object of logic.
§ 22
§ 23
§ 24
§ 25
§ 26
Subsectio II. That voices do not inadequately pertain to the logician either.
§ 27
§ 28
§ 29
§ 30
§ 31
§ 32
§ 33
§ 34
§ 35
§ 36
§ 37
§ 38
§ 39
§ 40
Sectio IV. Whether a Being of Reason Is the Object of Logic?
§ 41
§ 42
§ 43
§ 44
Subsectio I. Which beings of reason constitute the object of logic.
§ 45
§ 46
§ 47
§ 48
§ 49
§ 50
§ 51
§ 52
Subsectio II. Refutation of the first argument drawn from authority.
§ 53
§ 54
§ 55
§ 56
§ 57
§ 58
§ 59
Subsectio III. Arguments for the opinion of Soto and the other Thomists.
§ 60
§ 61
§ 62
§ 63
§ 64
§ 65
§ 66
§ 67
§ 68
§ 69
§ 70
Subsectio IV. The object of logic is real being.
§ 71
§ 72
§ 73
§ 74
§ 75
§ 76
§ 77
§ 78
§ 79
§ 80
Sectio V. Whether the Formal or Rather the Objective Method of Knowing Is the Object of Logic.
§ 81
Subsectio I. These modes of knowing are explained.
§ 82
§ 83
§ 84
§ 85
§ 86
§ 87
§ 88
Subsectio II. The question is resolved.
§ 89
§ 90
§ 91
§ 92
§ 93
§ 94
§ 95
§ 96
§ 97
§ 98
Sectio VI. What the Logician Immediately Considers in the Formal Method of Knowing.
§ 99
§ 100
§ 101
§ 102
§ 103
§ 104
§ 105
§ 106
§ 107
§ 108
§ 109
§ 110
Sectio VII. Whether the Formal Method of Knowing Is Treated by Attribution to the Objective.
§ 111
§ 112
§ 113
§ 114
§ 115
§ 116
§ 117
§ 118
Sectio VIII. On the Adequate Object of Dialectical Attribution.
§ 119
Subsectio I. The first opinion.
§ 120
§ 121
§ 122
§ 123
§ 124
§ 125
§ 126
§ 127
§ 128
Subsectio II.
§ 129
§ 130
§ 131
§ 132
§ 133
§ 134
Subsectio III. Definition, division, and argumentation are not the adequate object of logic.
§ 135
§ 136
§ 137
§ 138
§ 139
§ 140
§ 141
§ 142
§ 143
§ 144
§ 145
§ 146
Subsectio IV. Demonstration alone is the adequate object of attribution.
§ 147
§ 148
§ 149
§ 150
§ 151
§ 152
§ 153
§ 154
§ 155
§ 156
§ 157
§ 158
§ 159
§ 160
§ 161
§ 162
§ 163
Sectio IX. Other Matters Concerning the Object of Logic.
§ 164
§ 165
§ 166
§ 167
§ 168
Disputatio II: Disputatio II. How Logic Attains Its Object.
Sectio I. On Logic as Used and as Taught: Whether Each Is a Science?
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
Sectio II. Whether Logic Is a Practical Science or a Speculative One?
§ 10
§ 11
§ 12
§ 13
§ 14
§ 15
§ 16
§ 17
§ 18
§ 19
§ 20
§ 21
§ 22
§ 23
§ 24
§ 25
§ 26
§ 27
§ 28
§ 29
Sectio III. Whether Logic Concurs Efficiently in the Acts of Other Sciences?
§ 30
§ 31
§ 32
§ 33
§ 34
§ 35
Sectio IV. The Utility, Unity, and End of Dialectic.
§ 36
§ 37
§ 38
§ 39
§ 40
§ 41
§ 42
Disputatio III: Disputatio III. On the Predicables in General.
§ 1
Sectio I. I Premise Certain Points Concerning Universals.
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 8
Sectio II. Whether Predicability Belongs to the Essence of the Universal?
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
§ 12
§ 13
§ 14
§ 15
§ 16
§ 17
§ 18
§ 19
§ 20
Sectio III. How Are Universals Predicated?
§ 21
§ 22
§ 23
§ 24
§ 25
§ 26
§ 27
§ 28
§ 29
§ 30
§ 31
§ 32
§ 33
Disputatio IV: Disputatio IV. On Genus.
Sectio I. I Define Genus.
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
Sectio II. Whether the Material Element of Genus Is Common to All Its Inferiors?
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
§ 12
§ 13
§ 14
§ 15
§ 16
Sectio III. In What Sense Is Genus a Part of Species?
§ 17
§ 18
§ 19
§ 20
Sectio IV. In What Sense Is Genus a Whole in Comparison with Species.
§ 21
§ 22
§ 23
§ 24
§ 25
§ 26
Sectio V. Whether Genus Is Predicated Immediately of Individuals?
§ 27
§ 28
§ 29
§ 30
§ 31
§ 32
§ 33
§ 34
§ 35
§ 36
§ 37
§ 38
§ 39
§ 40
§ 41
§ 42
§ 43
§ 44
§ 45
§ 46
§ 47
§ 48
Disputatio V: Disputatio V. On Species and the Individual.
Sectio I. On the Subjectable Species.
§ 1
§ 2
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
§ 11
Sectio II. Definition of the Predicable Species.
§ 12
§ 13
§ 14
§ 15
§ 16
Sectio III. Whether the Predicable Species Requires Several Possible Individuals? Subsectio I. The Opinion of the Thomists.
Subsectio I. The opinion of the Thomists.
§ 17
The Thomists assert that the angelic nature of Michael, for example, cannot be multiplied within the same last species; nor can there be two angels distinguished only in number, but they necessarily differ in species: because angelic natures do not receive individuation from another, but from themselves. On this matter I do not dispute with them now, but will dispute in the metaphysical disputation 12, section 3. But this opinion being allowed to the Thomists for the sake of disputation, I proceed to the logical question. They moreover think1 that the nature of Michael is the lowest species predicable of many possible individuals of Michael, not indeed in reality, but in our way of conceiving. Which opinion Cajetan taught in 1 part, q. 13, art. 9, § 'adverte hic latitudinem'.
§ 18
This doctrine premises that there are two communicabilities of some objective concept: One is according to reality and reason at once: which requires a foundation both on the part of the intellect and on the part of nature: on the part of the intellect it indeed requires abstraction, and a positive indifference arising from abstraction from several singulars: but on the part of nature there is required actual or possible existence, simultaneous or successive, in several individuals.
But communicability according to reason only does not require a foundation on the part of nature, because possible existence is not found in several individuals: it has nevertheless a foundation on the part of the intellect alone, abstracting that from singularity.
§ 19
1 This opinion is proved from St. Thomas in very many places, but especially 1 p. q. 13 art. 9, where he asserts that this name, God, is indeed common not according to reality but according to reason. Likewise he says: but forms which are not individuated by another suppositum but by themselves, because namely they are subsistent, if they were understood according as they are in themselves, could not be communicated either in reality or in reason. But because we cannot understand simple forms subsisting by themselves according as they are, but understand them after the manner of composite things, having forms in matter: therefore, as has been said, we impose on them concrete names, signifying the nature in some suppositum.
§ 20
1 St. Thomas did not even in sleep think of an opinion so alien from the precepts of the logicians. For what he said, that God is communicable, he did not say by reason, but by opinion: by opinion indeed not prescinding but erring: for he says that the name is common, because in the opinion of many there are many gods: but what has this to do with this question, which treats of precisive abstractions, not of erratic opinions? For if someone should think that Peter is multiplicable into several Peters, he would judge that this name, Peter, is also common: will Peter therefore absolutely be a predicable species?
§ 21
St. Thomas there teaches that all composite natures are conceived by us as common according to reality, that is, as existing actually in several, as humanity: or as common according to reason only, as they are wont to be existing indeed in act in one alone and not in several: but simple subsistent natures, which are not individuated by some suppositum but by themselves, St. Thomas teaches are conceived by us after the manner of composite things. But this manner, in what is it constituted by St. Thomas? In universality? By no means: but in signification through a concrete name, which seems to sound an essential composition from the mode of conceiving, in these words: Therefore, as has been said, we impose on them concrete names signifying the nature in some suppositum. Whence as far as pertains to the character of names, the same character is found in the names which are imposed by us to signify the nature of composite things, and those which are imposed to signify simple subsistent natures. But St. Thomas cites himself in article 1 of that question, where he expounds this and no other sense, in these words: Hence it is that all names imposed by us to signify something complete subsisting signify in concreteness, as befits composite things.
§ 22
SUBSECTION II. The foundations of his opinion are demolished.
Subsectio II. The foundations of his opinion are destroyed.
§ 23
1 The first foundation of this opinion is, because angelic natures are constituted in the predicament, and not as genera or individuals: therefore as predicable species. For a predicament is a coordination of predicables. I answer2 that the angels are constituted in the predicament, because they are truly genera and species multiplicable on the part of reality into several individuals of the same character. Secondly, the generic natures of the angels are constituted: likewise also their lowest species, which by our reason are also individual: nor is another coordination of predicables needed than of those corresponding to the predicates which they have in themselves. But complete individuals are not placed as immediate to the genus, unless when individuation and specific difference are the same in reality and reason, as must be said in that opinion. Finally, let essential difference and individuation be distinguished in reason: I say that the lowest species are placed in the predicament, subjectible to the genus, and predicable of one individual only3: which are therefore excluded from this second predicable requiring several individuals.
§ 24
1 The second foundation: because the nature of Gabriel and of Michael differ in species, and consist of genus and difference: therefore they are predicable species. I answer, the antecedent being distinguished2: they differ in species through individuation, I concede the antecedent: they differ through something distinct from individuation, I deny the antecedent: likewise they consist of a genus and a difference distinct from individuation, I deny the antecedent: of a genus and difference the same as individuation, I concede the antecedent, and I deny the consequence: for those species are subjectible, not predicable. Likewise I answer, the distinction between the essential and the individual difference of the angelic nature being admitted: I grant that those natures differ in species and consist of genus and difference, yet I deny the consequence: because for them to be subjectible species that composition from genus and difference suffices: but for them to be predicable, it was necessary that that difference be possible in several real individuals: which according to the opinion of these authors is repugnant.
§ 25
1 The third argument: because the nature of Michael is conceived as abstracted from singularity; therefore it is conceived as common. First, the antecedent is false, for I shall show that from this opinion the nature of Michael cannot be conceived without its individual difference. Secondly I answer, the distinction between the individual and the specific difference being admitted, that there is no consequence: both because they themselves with their Cajetan2 say that natures even really common, abstracted from singulars, are neither universal nor singular, but are a nature according to itself. And so the nature of Michael, precise from singularity, is not singular, because nothing is singular except through singularity: nor is it likewise common: for that there is required a real potency, a real aptitude, to be in many: which is lacking to that nature: which in that state has no aptitude for being communicated; but an aptitude for one singularity only. Whence in that state they are neither formally singular nor common: but radically they are only singular.