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
§ 18
§ 19
§ 20
§ 21
§ 22
Subsectio II. The foundations of his opinion are destroyed.
§ 23
§ 24
§ 25
§ 26
§ 27
§ 28
§ 29
Subsectio III. The opposite opinion.
§ 30
§ 31
§ 32
§ 33
§ 34
§ 35
§ 36
§ 37
§ 38
§ 39
§ 40
Sectio IV. Whether Genus Can Be Found in One Species, and This in One Individual?
§ 41
§ 42
§ 43
§ 44
§ 45
§ 46
§ 47
§ 48
Sectio V. On the Individual of First Intention.
§ 49
Sectio VI. On the Individual of Second Intention.
§ 50
1 An individual is that which is subject to the species. But it is subject completely. For when it is subject incompletely to the difference or to the genus, just as the species is predicated of the same thing completely, the genus incompletely. Nor does this definition apply to the individuals of divine things, such as Paternity and Filiation formally under the ratio of person, which properly is not subject to the species, as I said in section 2. An individual is defined by Porphyry by another account: that is, that which is predicated of one only. 2 To this definition Toletus, 3 Soto, and others oppose themselves, asserting that an individual is predicated of nothing by formal and direct predication, but only identical.
§ 51
1 Note that identical predication is not said to be that by which it is signified that the predicate agrees with the subject, for thus every true affirmative proposition would be identical: but only that is called identical in which the predicate is formally and by our reason the same as the subject, namely when each extreme is conceived in the same way, as are these, homo est homo, Petrus est Petrus. But for a proposition to be formal and direct, it is required that there be a different mode of conceiving the subject and the predicate, so that the predicate is the formal ratio constituting the subject in the ratio by which it is predicated of it, as Petrus est homo, homo est animal, Ioannes est albus. Furthermore note that a determinate particular individual has singular and particular ratios, through which it is formally constituted in the ratio of such, as Peter is constituted in the ratio of this man through this rational and through this animal, and in the ratio of this white thing through this whiteness.
§ 52
1 I say therefore first. Of an individual there is predicated by direct and formal predication the ratio of the singular difference, and the ratio of the singular genus, and all the singular accidental ratios that it has. This is proved first, because Peter, for example, is formally constituted in the ratio of this man through this animal and this rational. For since Peter is a singular, he cannot be composed through common ratios except as contracted and made singular. Likewise this animal and this rational are conceived by a different ratio than Peter is conceived; because Peter is conceived as a certain logical whole, and this rational and this animal as its parts. Therefore this rational and this animal are predicated directly and formally of Peter. The same is proved concerning the predication of an accident. For Peter is conceived in a different way than white is: and whiteness formally constitutes Peter in the ratio of this white thing. Therefore this white thing is predicated directly and formally of Peter.
§ 53
Secondly, because this is a formal and direct predication, homo est animal, homo est rationalis, homo est albus; therefore also these: Petrus est animal, Petrus est hoc rationale, hoc album. The consequence is proved, because just as man is formally constituted from animal and rational in common, and from whiteness, so this man is formally constituted from this animal, this rational, and this whiteness; therefore just as that is a direct and formal predication, so also is this. Nor indeed is it necessary for this that the predicate be universal with respect to the subject, as in this, homo est rationale.
§ 54
1 2 You will say that Peter is not composed from this animal and from this rational, but from man and from Peterness. On the contrary, first, I showed in Disputation 4 that incomplete individuals are given. And it is evident: because I clearly conceive in a man that he is a singular animal without conceiving him to be a man, just as I conceive animal without rational: therefore in the same way I distinguish this animal from this rational, as animal from rational.
3 Secondly, Peter is constituted from man and Peterness: therefore this is a formal predication. Petrus est homo contractus by Peterness, as is clear. But it is a singular predication of a singular: therefore. I prove the minor, because man contracted by Peterness is singular, because it is contracted by the species, and is made singular by singularity, as white by whiteness.
§ 55
1 2 I say secondly that the definition of the individual is predicated directly and formally of it. First, because the definition formally constitutes the defined, and differs from it in the mode of conceiving. Secondly, because the definition of the species is predicated directly of it: therefore also the definition of the individual of the same: but this definition is singular, because it is converted with the defined: therefore formally a singular is predicated of a singular.
§ 56
1 I say thirdly. This is an identical proposition. Petrus est hic homo, Hic homo est Petrus. It is proved, because Peter formally and determinately says this individual of man; but this man says the same formally: therefore it is identical. It is confirmed, when by a demonstrative sign I point out a man, I signify this singular and contracted one in number: therefore I signify Peter formally. For man and Peter differ in this, that man says man confusedly: but Peter determinately. Similarly also this man. You will say that Peter is formally constituted through this man. I deny this, because Peterness and thisness, or this man, are formally the same.
§ 57
1 You will say, when someone hears that Peter did something, and does not know Peter: when afterwards he sees Peter, someone can say to him, hic homo est Petrus, but then it is a formal predication: therefore. 2 I answer that then Peter and this man are conceived in a different way, for before, Peter had been conceived confusedly and indeterminately by a universal concept, and one indifferent to several; nor had the concept of Peter as Peter been formed, but the concept of the name by which he is called had been formed, the sign of which is that Peter is unknown to the same person, and then that predication is equivalent to this, hic homo est homo, whom you had known confusedly to be called Peter: but in our conclusion we are dealing with the predication of an individual, and with the cognition of Peter explicitly and determinately as such: wherefore that proposition is of a vague individual concerning a determinate one as to the sense of the proposition, because Peter had been conceived vaguely.
§ 58
1 2 3 I say fourthly. This is a formal proposition, Petrus per se est Petrus, because the subject is conceived in another way in relation to the predicate, because the word per se denotes that it is not accidental to Peter to be Peter. Just as it accidentally agrees with him to be this white thing, so Aristotle said: bonum per se est bonum. Toletus and others oppose to us certain testimonies of Aristotle, in which he denies that an individual is predicated of an individual, which understand as concerning substantial individuals conceived in the same way in subject and predicate, as when he says that primary substances, that is, individuals, are predicated of no subject, or understand as concerning abstract individuals, which are not predicated of concretes, as when he says, this white thing is in a subject, but is said of no subject: for the name white thing denotes whiteness in the abstract; or understand as concerning the universal predicable. Let this be firm, 4 that individual ratios are predicated of individuals in the same proportional way in which common ratios are predicated of common things.