The writers, and editors, of the Logical text-books which run in the
ordinary grooves——to whom I shall hereafter refer by the (I hope
inoffensive) title “The Logicians”——take, on this subject,
what seems to me to be a more humble position than is at all
necessary. They speak of the Copula of a Proposition “with bated
breath”, almost as if it were a living, conscious Entity, capable of
declaring for itself what it chose to mean, and that we, poor human
creatures, had nothing to do but to ascertain _what_ was its sovereign
will and pleasure, and submit to it.
In opposition to this view, I maintain that any writer of a book is
fully authorised in attaching any meaning he likes to any word or
phrase he intends to use. If I find an author saying, at the beginning
of his book, “Let it be understood that by the word ‘_black_’ I
shall always mean ‘_white_’, and that by the word ‘_white_’ I
shall always mean ‘_black_’,” I meekly accept his ruling,
however injudicious I may think it.
And so, with regard to the question whether a Proposition is or is
not to be understood as asserting the existence of its Subject, I
maintain that every writer may adopt his own rule, provided of course
that it is consistent with itself and with the accepted facts of
Logic.
|