(_b_) With this purpose in mind, let us look at the traditional scheme, omitting the negative Judgments of which we have not yet spoken. We may dismiss the Indefinite Judgment “Men are mortal” as imperfect by not being “quantified,” and we have left, as Categorical Judgments, the Particular Affirmative “Some men are mortal,” the Universal Affirmative “All men are mortal,” and the Singular Affirmative “Socrates is mortal.” The Singular Affirmative, however, is not treated of any further under the old scheme, { 114} because in it the Subject is taken in its full extent, and therefore the Singular Affirmative Judgment is ranked with the Universal Affirmative. So as Categorical Judgments we have left the Particular Affirmative and the Universal Affirmative.
Outside the account of the Categorical Judgment we find the Hypothetical and Disjunctive Judgments touched on as a sort of Appendix, standing as “Conditional.” The historical reason of this is, that they were not recognised by Aristotle, and have never been incorporated in the diagram of judgments employed in traditional Logic. Then on the ordinary scheme we have--
Particular Universal Hypothetical Disjunctive Judgments. Judgments, Judgments. including Singular Judgments.
The defects of this scheme from our point of view are—
(i.) Our Impersonal and Demonstrative Judgments are omitted. They _might_ be classed under the particular, which also has an undefined element in the subject.
(ii.) The Singular Judgment (of which the chief instance is the judgment with proper name) is rightly classed as Universal, but yet is wrongly absorbed in the abstract universal, from which it ought to be distinguished.
(iii.) In the treatment of the Universal Judgment there are two defects—
(1) The Collective Judgment, resulting from enumeration, { 115} direct or indirect, is not distinguished from the Generic Judgment, resting on a connection of content or presumption of causality. “All the [1] papers have been looked over” should be distinguished from “All triangles have their three angles equal to two right angles.”
[1] “The” as here used indeed practically = “these,” so that, by our analysis, such a judgment has no claim to rank as a universal judgment It is difficult to find a plainly collective judgment which has not some affinity to judgment with demonstrative pronoun or proper name. A judgment in which “All M.P.’s” stands as subject, has affinity with the latter.