p. 1

OverviewVersionsHelp

Facsimile

Transcription

Status: Indexed

Notes on a Review inf the Edinb. Rev. for April 1833 on
Dr Whatley's Logic.

{rule}

This is one instance out of many which occur, of critics blundering in their
judgment on a work, from not having taken the trouble to consider its real
object. An author writes with a certain drift, to illustrate certain doctrines, etc.,
he is reviewed on an arbitrary hypothesis of the Critic's. Dr. W. sees a science
neglected, he wishes to recomment? it, he writes professedly a popular treatise,
a treatise which would not attain its object if it was other than popular.
The Reviewer find fault with him it is not more rigidly scientific,
and because it is not more completely identified with the actual Logic of
the Ancients, because i.e. it is not that which it never pretended to
be. Vainly has Aristotle warned us that accuracy is to be sought only ἐφ᾽
ὅσον οἰκεῖον τῇ μεθόδῳ. καὶ γὰρ τέκτων καὶ γεωμέτρης διαφερόντως ἐπιζητοῦσι τὴν
ὀρθήν etc. Eth. i,7. Thus the Reviewer accuses Dr W. of a want of erudition -
"Not one seems to have studied the logical treatises of Aristotle; all are unread in the
Greek Commentators on the Organon, in the Scholastic, Ramist, etc. - p. 200. Dr W. all
along professes to be analytical. Let the Reviewer attack this principle of teachin[g]
if he will - but let him not pass over the question, & urge? at one as a fault
that Dr W. does not set the student at once to learn by rote a string of tech-
nical terms. The very object of the Treatise is to soften technicalities (which
themselves may be very useful to the advanced student.) to secure substantial
accuracy, and to fix the sciences in the mind on a common sense founda-
tion. The Treatise is professedly upon "The Elements of Logic." - Look
at p. 42 and you find is said in the note. "The learner may perhaps be
startled &c" - Strange to say, the Review admits that such is the nature of
the work. When he talks of "a new life" being "suddenly communicated to
the aspiring study etc.

The Reviewer attacks Dr W.'s division of Logic into Science and Art. He
quotes Dr W. as sating "that Logic has been in general regarded merely as an art" etc.
Now surely this has been the popular notion of it; and if so, what is the use
of going on to speak of Plato, the Arabian Schoolmen, Thomists etc. p. 203.

The distinction made p. 206 not between Logica docens & L. untens is a remar-
kable instance of πϵριϵργϵια.

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page