Mill, for example, says “the objects are no longer individually designated, they are pointed out only by their attributes;” “most of them not known individually at all.” That means that the explicit Subject is not made of individuals. The natural meaning is disputed; I incline to think with Venn, that the Subject is naturally taken _more_ in Denotation (not solely, which is unmeaning), and the Predicate _more_ in connotation. But clearly in literal form the Subject is simply a significant idea, and its existence in things or events is not affirmed though it may be strongly implied. Hamilton [1] { 120} says quite calmly--“‘Rainy weather is wet weather’ is a Categorical Proposition; ‘If it rains it will be wet’ is Hypothetical.” Between the two I can see no distinction of meaning at all. [2] If indeed we take the Universal Affirmative in the pure sense of aggregate formed by enumeration, and therefore finite, it _may_ be said that we assert the existence of the individuals composing it; but this is a very unreal view of the meaning of the Judgment (though suggested by its customary form), and even then it would be hard to prove that we continue to think of the Subject as individuals. This reference to a finite aggregate makes the _Collective Judgment_ or _Judgment of Allness_. It cannot really exist in the case of a class like man, of unknown extension, and is confined, at its widest, to such cases as “All present Members of Parliament have to take a line on the Irish question.” This _might_ be Categorical, but need not be so.
[2] Contrast Jevons, _Elementary Logic_, p. 163.
Otherwise, the Universal Affirmative of common Logic is literally Hypothetical, though in some cases it may strongly imply the assertion of reality. Dr. Venn has discussed this question. [1] He says the implication of existence is much stronger with a single-word Subject than with a many-worded Subject; _i.e._ perhaps with a natural than with an artificial conception. But in any case, the expressed bond with perception is lost, and in pure form the Subject is a mere abstract idea, so that the relations of content entirely predominate over the implication of existence.
Thus the Universal Affirmative in its full meaning fairly { 121} represents the sciences of classification, combining a subordinate meaning of Allness or numerical totality with a primary meaning of connotation of attributes or presumed causality. When we say “All the Buttercup family have an inferior corolla,” of course we mean that there is a reason for this. Often we omit the term all, as in “Heat is a mode of motion.” In doing this we wipe out the last trace of a reference to individual objects, and we pass to the pure hypothetical form which absolutely neglects the existence of objects.