亚里士多德的逻辑 Aristotle's Logic

亚里士多德的影响在许多不同的领域里都非常之大，但以在逻辑学(logic)方面为最大。在古代末期当柏拉图在形而上学(metaphysics)方面享有至高无上的地位时，亚里士多德已经在逻辑方面是公认的权威了，并且在整个中世纪(Middle Ages)他都始终保持着这种地位。到了十三世纪，基督教(Christian)哲学家又在形而上学的领域中也把他奉为是至高无上的。文艺复兴(Renaissance)以后，这种至高无上的地位大部分是丧失了，但在逻辑学上他仍然保持着至高无上的地位。甚至于直到今天，所有的天主教(Catholic)哲学教师以及其他许多的人仍然在顽固地反对近代逻辑的种种新发现，并且以一种奇怪的坚韧性在坚持着已经是确凿无疑地象托勒密(Ptolemaic)的天文学那样过了时的一种体系。这就使我们很难对亚里士多德做到历史的公平了。他今天的影响是如此之与明晰的思维背道而驰，以致我们很难想到他对所有他的前人（包括柏拉图在内）做出了多大的进步，或者说，如果他的逻辑著作曾经是继续进展着，而不是（象事实上那样）已经到了一个僵死的结局并且继之以两千多年的停滞不前的话，它仍然会显得多么地值得赞叹。在谈到亚里士多德的前人的时候，当然并没有必要提醒读者说，他们并非逐字逐句都是充满灵感的；所以我们尽可以赞美他们的才能，而不必被人认为就是赞成他们的全部学说。与此相反，亚里士多德的学说，尤其是在逻辑学方面，则直到今天仍然是个战场，所以就不能以一种纯粹的历史精神来加以处理了。

ARISTOTLE'S influence, which was very great in many different fields, was greatest of all in
logic. In late antiquity, when Plato was still supreme in metaphysics, Aristotle was the recognized authority in logic, and he retained this position throughout the Middle Ages. It was not till the thirteenth century that Christian philosophers accorded him supremacy in the field of metaphysics. This supremacy was largely lost after the Renaissance, but his supremacy in logic survived. Even at the present day, all Catholic teachers of philosophy and many others still obstinately reject the discoveries of modern logic, and adhere with a strange tenacity to a system which is as definitely antiquated as Ptolemaic astronomy. This makes it difficult to do historical justice to Aristotle. His present-day influence is so inimical to clear thinking that it is hard to remember how great an advance he made upon all his predecessors (including Plato), or how admirable his logical work would still seem if it had been a stage in a continual progress, instead of being (as in fact it was) a dead end, followed by over two thousand years of stagnation. In dealing with the predecessors of Aristotle, it is not necessary to remind the reader that they are not verbally inspired; one can therefore praise them for their ability without being supposed to subscribe to all their doctrines. Aristotle, on the contrary, is still, especially in logic, a battle-ground, and cannot be treated in a purely historical spirit.

    亚里士多德在逻辑学上最重要的工作就是三段论(syllogism)的学说。一个三段论就是一个包括有大前提(major premiss)、小前提(minor premiss)和结论(conclusion)三个部分的论证。三段论有许多不同的种类，其中每一种经院学者都给起了一个名字。最为人所熟知的就是称为“Barbara”①的那一种：

Aristotle's most important work in logic is the doctrine of the syllogism. A syllogism is an
argument consisting of three parts, a major premiss, a minor premiss, and a conclusion.
Syllogisms are of a number of different kinds, each of which has a name, given by the scholastics.
The most familiar is the kind called "Barbara":

    凡人都有死（大前提）。All men are mortal (Major premiss).

    苏格拉底是人（小前提）。Socrates is a man (Minor premiss).

    所以：苏格拉底有死（结论）。 Therefore: Socrates is mortal (Conclusion).

    或者：凡人都有死。Or: All men are mortal.

    所有的希腊人都是人。All Greeks are men.

    所以：所有的希腊人都有死。Therefore: All Greeks are mortal.

    （亚里士多德并没有区别上述的这两种形式，我们下面就可以看到这是一个错误。）

( Aristotle does not distinguish between these two forms; this, as we shall see later, is a mistake.)

    其他的形式是：没有一条鱼是有理性的，所有的沙鱼都是鱼，所以没有一条沙鱼是有理性的。（这就叫做“celarent”②）

Other forms are: No fishes are rational, all sharks are fishes, therefore no sharks are rational. (This is called "Celarent.")

    凡人都有理性，有些动物是人，所以有些动物是有理性的。（这就是叫做Darii”③）

All men are rational, some animals are men, therefore some animals are rational. (This is called
"Darii.")

    没有一个希腊人是黑色的，有些人是希腊人，所以有些人不是黑色的。（这就叫做“�AEerio”①）

No Greeks are black, some men are Greeks, therefore some men are not black. (This is called
"Ferio.")

    这四种就构成“第一格”(first figure)；亚里士多德又增加了第二格和第三格，经院学者又增加上了第四格。已经证明了后三格可以用各种办法都归结为第一格。

These four make up the "first figure"; Aristotle adds a second and third figure, and the schoolmen
added a fourth. It is shown that the three later figures can be reduced to the first by various
devices.

    从一个单一的前提里可以做出几种推论来。从“有些人有死”，我们可以推论说“有些有死的是人”。按照亚里士多德的说法，这也可以从“凡人都有死”里面推论出来。从：“没有一个神有死”，我们可以推论说“没有一个有死的是神”，但是从“有些人不是希腊人”并不能得出来“有些希腊人不是人”。

There are some inferences that can be made from a single premiss. From "some men are mortal"
we can infer that "some mortals are men." According to Aristotle, this can also be inferred from
"all men are mortal." From "no gods are mortal" we can infer "no mortals are gods," but from
"some men are not Greeke" it does not follow that "some Greeks are not men."

    除上述的这些推论而外，亚里士多德和他的后继者们又认为，一切演绎的推论如果加以严格地叙述便都是三段论式的。把所有各种有效的三段论都摆出来，并且把提出来的任何论证都化为三段论的形式，这样就应该可能避免一切的谬误了。

Apart from such inferences as the above, Aristotle and his followers thought that all deductive
inference, when strictly stated, is syllogistic. By setting forth all the valid kinds of syllogism, and setting out any suggested argument in syllogistic form, it should therefore be possible to avoid all fallacies.

    这一体系乃是形式逻辑(formal logic)的开端，并且就此而论则它既是重要的而又是值得赞美的。但是作为形式逻辑的结局而不是作为形式逻辑的开端来考虑，它就要受到三种批评了：

This system was the beginning of formal logic, and, as such, was both important and admirable.
But considered as the end, not the beginning, of formal logic, it is open to three kinds of criticism:

    （1）这一体系本身之内的形式的缺点。Formal defects within the system itself.

    （2）比起演绎论证的其他形式来，对于三段论式估价过高。Over-estimation of the syllogism, as compared to other forms of deductive argument.

    （3）对于演绎法之作为一种论证的形式估价过高。Over-estimation of deduction as a form of argument.

    关于这三种批评的每一种，我们都必须说几句话。On each of these three, something must be said.

    （1）形式的缺点  Formal defects

    让我们从下列的两个陈述开始：“苏格拉底是人”和“所有的希腊人都是人”。我们有必要在这两者之间做出严格的区别来，这是亚里士多德的逻辑所不曾做到的。“所有的希腊人都是人”这一陈述通常被理解为蕴涵着：有希腊人存在；若没有这一蕴涵则某些亚里士多德的三段论式就要无效了。

Let us begin with the two statements "Socrates is a man" and "all Greeks are men." It is necessary to make a sharp distinction between these two, which is not done in Aristotelian logic. The statement "all Greeks are men" is commonly interpreted as implying that there are Greeks; without this implication, some of Aristotle's syllogisms are not valid. Take for instance:

    例如：“所有的希腊人都是人，所有的希腊人都是白色的，所以有些人是白色的”。如果有希腊人存在，而不是不存在；则这个三段论便是有效的。但假如我要说：

"All Greeks are men, all Greeks are white, therefore some men are white." This is valid if there
are Greeks, but not otherwise. If I were to say:

    “所有的金山都是山，所有的金山都是金的，所以有些山是金的”，我的结论就会是错误的了，尽管在某种意义上我的前提可以说都是真的。所以如果我们要说得明白我们就必须把“所有的希腊人都是人”这一陈述分为两个，一个是说“有希腊人存在”，另一个是说“如果有任何东西是一个希人，那么它就是一个人”。后一陈述纯粹是假设的，它并不蕴涵着有希腊人的存在。

"All golden mountains are mountains, all golden mountains are golden, therefore some mountains
are golden," my conclusion would be false, though in some sense my premisses would be true. If
we are to be explicit, we must therefore divide the one statement "all Greeks are men" into two,
one saying "there are Greeks," and the other saying "if anything is a Greek, it is a man." The latter statement is purely hypothetical, and does not imply that there are Greeks.

    这样，“所有的希腊人都是人”这一陈述就比“苏格拉底是人”这一陈述，在形式上更为复杂得多。“苏格拉底是人”以“苏格拉底”作为它的主词，但是“所有的希腊人是人”并不以“所有的希腊人”作为它的主词；因为无论是在“有希腊人存在”这一陈述里，还是在“如果有任何东西是一个希腊人，那么它就是一个人”这一陈述里，都并没有任何有关“所有的希腊人”的东西。

The statement "all Greeks are men" is thus much more complex in form than the statement
"Socrates is a man." "Socrates is a man" has "Socrates" for its subject, but "all Greeks are men"
does not have "all Greeks" for its subject, for there is nothing about "all Greeks" either in the
statement "there are Greeks" or in the statement "if anything is a Greek it is a man."

    这种纯形式的错误，是形而上学与认识论中许多错误的一个根源。让我们考察一下，我们关于下列两个命题的知识的情形：“苏格拉底有死”和“凡人都有死”。为了要知道“苏格拉底有死”的真实性，我们大多数人都满足于依靠见证；但是如果见证是可靠的，则它就必然要把我们引回到某一个认得苏格拉底、并亲眼看到他死亡的人那儿去。这个被人目睹的事实——苏格拉底的尸体——再加上这就叫作“苏格拉底”的那种知识，便足以向我们保证苏格拉底的死。但是当谈到“所有的人都有死”的时候，情形就不同了。我们有关这类普遍命题的知识的问题，是一个非常困难的问题。有时候它们仅仅是文辞上的：“所有的希腊人都是人”之为我们所知，乃是因为并没有任何东西可以称为“一个希腊人”，除非那个东西是一个人。这类的普遍陈述可以从字典里得到肯定；但它们除了告诉我们怎样用字而外，并没有告诉我们有关世界的任何东西。但是“所有的人都有死”却并不属于这一类；一个不死的人在逻辑上并没有任何自相矛盾之处。我们根据归纳法而相信这个命题，是因为并没有可靠的证据说一个人能活到（比如说）150岁以上；但是这只能使这个命题成为或然的，而并不能成为确切无疑的。只要当有活人存在的时候，它就不可能是确切无疑的。

This purely formal error was a source of errors in metaphysics and theory of knowledge. Consider
the state of our knowledge in regard to the two propositions "Socrates is mortal" and "all men are
mortal." In order to know the truth of "Socrates is mortal," most of us are content to rely upon
testimony; but if testimony is to be reliable, it must lead us back to some one who knew Socrates
and saw him dead. The one perceived fact--the dead body of Socrates--together with the
knowledge that this was called "Socrates," was enough to assure us of the mortality of Socrates.
But when it comes to "all men are mortal," the matter is different. The question of our knowledge
of such general propositions is a very difficult one. Sometimes they are merely verbal: "all Greeks are men" is known because nothing is called "a Greek" unless it is a man. Such general statements can be ascertained from the dictionary; they tell us nothing about the world except how words are used. But "all men are mortal" is not of this sort; there is nothing logically self-contradictory about an immortal man. We believe the proposition on the basis of induction, because there is no well-authenticated case of a man living more than (say) 150 years; but this only makes the proposition probable, not certain. It cannot be certain so long as living men exist.

    形而上学的错误出自于假设“所有的人”是“所有的人都有死”的主词，与“苏格拉底”是“苏格拉底有死”的主词，这两者有着同一的意义。它使人可能认为在某种意义上，“所有的人”所指的与“苏格拉底”所指的是同一类的一种整体。这就使得亚里士多德说，种类在某种意义上也就是实质。亚里士多德很谨慎地在限定这一陈述，但是他的弟子们，尤其是蒲尔斐利，却表现得没有这么细心。

Metaphysical errors arose through supposing that "all men" is the subject of "all men are mortal"
in the same sense as that in which "Socrates" is the subject of "Socrates is mortal." It made it
possible to hold that, in some sense, "all men" denotes an entity of the same sort as that denoted
by "Socrates." This led Aristotle to say that in a sense a species is a substance. He is careful to qualify this statement, but his followers, especially Porphyry, showed less caution.

    由于这一错误亚里士多德便陷入了另一种错误，他以为一个谓语的谓语可以成为原来主词的谓语。假设我说“苏格拉底是希腊人，所有的希腊人都是人”；亚里士多德便以为“人”是“希腊人”的谓语，而“希腊人”又是“苏格拉底”的谓语，于是显然可见“人”就是“苏格拉底”的谓语。但事实上，“人”并不是“希腊人”的谓语。名字与谓语之间的区别，或者用形而上学的语言来说也就是个体与共相之间的区别，就这样被他抹煞了，这给哲学带来了多灾多难的后果。所造成的混乱之一就是，设想只具有一个成员的类也就等于那一个成员。这就使人对于一这个数目不可能有一种正确的理论，并且造成了无穷无尽的有关于“一”的坏形而上学。

Another error into which Aristotle falls through this mistake is to think that a predicate of a
predicate can be a predicate of the original subject. If I say " Socrates is Greek, all Greeks are
human," Aristotle thinks that "human" is a predicate of "Greek," while "Greek" is a predicate of
"Socrates," and obviously "human" is a predicate of "Socrates." But in fact "human" is not a
predicate of "Greek." The distinction between names and predicates, or, in metaphysical language,
between particulars and universals, is thus blurred, with disastrous consequences to philosophy.
One of the resulting confusions was to suppose that a class with only one member is identical with
that one member. This made it impossible to have a correct theory of the number one, and led to
endless bad metaphysics about unity.

    （2）对于三段论式估价过高 Over-estimation of the syllogism

    三段论式仅仅是演绎论证(deductive argument)中的一种。数学完全是演绎的(deductive)，但在数学里面三段论几乎从来也不曾出现过。当然我们有可能把数学论证重行写成三段论的形式，但是那就会成为非常矫揉造作的了，而且也并不会使之更能令人信服。以算学为例：假设我买了价值四元六角三分钱的东西，付出了一张五元的钞票，那么应该找给我多少钱呢？把这样一个简单的数字写成三段论的形式便会是荒谬绝伦的了，而且还会掩蔽了这一论证的真实性质。此外，在逻辑里面也有非三段论式的推论，例如：“马是一种动物，所以马的头是一种动物的头”。事实上，有效的三段论仅只是有效的演绎法的一部分，它对于其他的部分并没有逻辑的优先权。想赋予演绎法中的三段论以首要地位的这种试图，就在有关数学推理的性质这个问题上把哲学家们引入了歧途。康德看出了数学并不是三段论式的，便推论说数学使用了超逻辑的原则；然而他却认为超逻辑的原则和逻辑的原则是同样确实可靠的。康德也象他的前人一样，由于尊崇亚里士多德而被引入了歧途，尽管是在另一条不同的道路上。

The syllogism is only one kind of deductive argument. In mathematics, which is wholly deductive, syllogisms hardly ever occur. Of course it would be possible to re-write mathematical arguments in syllogistic form, but this would be very artificial and would not make them any more cogent. Take arithmetic, for example. If I buy goods worth $4.63, and tender a $5 bill in payment, how much change is due to me? To put this simple sum in the form of a syllogism would be absurd, and would tend to conceal the real nature of the argument. Again, within logic there are non-syllogistic inferences, such as: "A horse is an animal, therefore a horse's head is an animal's head." Valid syllogisms, in fact, are only some among valid deductions, and have no logical priority over others. The attempt to give pre-eminence to the syllogism in deduction misled philosophers as to the nature of mathematical reasoning. Kant, who perceived that mathematics is not syllogistic, inferred that it uses extra-logical principles, which, however, he supposed to be as certain as those of logic. He, like his predecessors, though in a different way, was misled by respect for Aristotle.

    （3）对于演绎法估计过高 Over-estimation of deduction

    对于作为知识来源的演绎法，希腊人一般说来要比近代哲学家赋给了它以更大的重要性。在这一方面，亚里士多德要比柏拉图错误得更少一些；他一再承认归纳法的重要性，并且他也相当注意这个问题：我们是怎样知道演绎法所必须据之以出发的最初前提的？可是他也和其他的希腊人一样，在他的认识论里给予了演绎法以不适当的重要地位。我们可以同意（比如说）史密斯先生是有死的，并且我们可以很粗疏地说，我们之知道这一点乃是因为我们知道所有的人都有死。但是我们实际所知道的并不是“所有的人都有死”；我们所知道的倒不如说是象“所有生于一百五十年之前的人都有死，并且几乎所有生于一百年之前的人也都有死”这样的东西。这就是我们认为史密斯先生也要死的理由。但是这种论证乃是归纳法(induction)，而不是演绎法(deduction)。归纳法不象演绎法那样确切可信，它只提供了或然性而没有确切性；但是另一方面它却给了我们以演绎法所不能给我们的新知识。除了逻辑与纯粹数学而外，一切重要的推论全都是归纳的而非演绎的；仅有的例外便是法律和神学，这两者的最初原则都得自于一种不许疑问的条文，即法典或者圣书。

The Greeks in general attached more importance to deduction as a source of knowledge than modern philosophers do. In this respect, Aristotle was less at fault than Plato; he repeatedly admitted the importance of induction, and he devoted considerable attention to the question: how do we know the first premisses from which deduction must start? Nevertheless, he, like other Greeks, gave undue prominence to deduction in his theory of knowledge. We shall agree that Mr. Smith (say) is mortal, and we may, loosely, say that we know this because we know that all men are mortal. But what we really know is not "all men are mortal"; we know rather something like "all men born more than one hundred and fifty years ago are mortal, and so are almost all men born more than one hundred years ago." This is our reason for thinking that Mr. Smith will die. But this argument is an induction, not a deduction. It has less cogency than a deduction, and yields only a probability, not a certainty; but on the other hand it gives new knowledge, which deduction does not. All the important inferences outside logic and pure mathematics are inductive, not deductive; the only exceptions are law and theology, each of which derives its first principles from an unquestionable text, viz. the statute books or the scriptures.

    除了探讨三段论式的《分析前篇》而外，亚里士多德另有一些著作在哲学史上也有相当的重要性。其中之一就是《范畴篇》那个短期著作。新柏拉图主义者蒲尔斐利(Porphyry)给这部书写过一片注释，这片注释对于中世纪的哲学有很显著的影响；但是目前还是让我们撇开蒲尔斐利而只限于谈亚里士多德。

Apart from The Prior Analytics, which deals with the syllogism, there are other writings of
Aristotle which have considerable importance in the history of philosophy. One of these is the
short work on The Categories. Porphyry the Neoplatonist wrote a commentary on this book,
which had a very notable influence on medieval philosophy; but for the present let us ignore
Porphyry and confine ourselves to Aristotle.

    “范畴”(category)这个字——无论是在亚里士多德的著作里，还是在康德与黑格尔的著作里——其确切涵意究竟指的是什么，我必须坦白承认我始终都不能理解。我自己并不相信在哲学里面“范畴”这一名词是有用的，可以表示任何明确的观念。亚里士多德认为有十种范畴：即，实体，数量，性质，关系，地点，时间，姿态，状况，活动，遭受。对于“范畴”这一名词所提到的唯一定义就是：“每一个不是复合的用”——接着就是上述的一串名单。这似乎是指凡是其意义并不是由别的字的意义所结合而成的每一个字，都代表着一种实体或一种数量等等。但是并没有提到编排这十种范畴的名单所根据的是一种什么原则。

What, exactly, is meant by the word "category," whether in Aristotle or in Kant and Hegel, I must
confess that I have never been able to understand. I do not myself believe that the term "category" is in any way useful in philosophy, as representing any clear idea. There are, in Aristotle, ten categories: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, and affection. The only definition offered of the term "category" is: "expressions which are in no way composite signify"--and then follows the above list. This seems to mean that every word of which the meaning is not compounded of the meanings of other words signifies a substance or a quantity or etc. There is no suggestion of any principle on which the list of ten categories has been compiled.

    “实体”首先就是既不能用以叙说主词而且也不出现于主词的东西。当一个事物尽管不是主词的一部分，但没有主词就不能存在时，我们就说它是“出现于主词”。这里所举的例子是出现于人心之中的一些文法知识，以及可以出现于物体的某一种白色。实体，在上述的主要意义上，便是一个个体的物或人或动物。但是在次要的意义上，则一个种或一个类——例如“人”或者“动物”——也可以叫作一个实体。这种次要的意义似乎是站不住脚的，而且到了后代作家们的手里，更为许多坏的形而上学大开方便之门。

"Substance" is primarily what is not predicable of a subject nor present in a subject. A thing is
said to be 'present in a subject" when, though not a part of the subject, it cannot exist without the subject. The instances given are a piece of grammatical knowledge which is present in a mind, and a certain whiteness which may be present in a body. A substance in the above primary sense is an individual thing or person or animal. But in a secondary sense a species or a genus-e.g., "man" or "animal"-may be called a substance. This secondary sense seems indefensible, and opened the door, in later writers, to much bad metaphysics.

    《分析后期》大体上是探讨一个曾使得每一种演绎的理论都感到棘手的问题，那就是：最初的前提是怎样得到的？既然演绎法必须从某个地点出发，我们就必须从某种未经证明的东西而开始，而这种东西又必须是以证明以外的其他方式而为我们所知的。我不准备详细阐述亚里士多德的理论，因为它有赖于本质这个概念。他说，一个定义就是对于一件事物的本质性质的陈述。本质这一概念是自从亚里士多德以后直迄近代的各家哲学里的一个核心部分。但是我的意见则认为它是一种糊涂不堪的概念，然而它的历史重要性却需要我们对它谈几句话。

The Posterior Analytics is a work largely concerned with a question which must trouble any
deductive theory, namely: How are first premisses obtained? Since deduction must start from
somewhere, we must begin with something unproved, which must be known otherwise than by
demonstration. I shall not give Aristotle's theory in detail, since it depends upon the notion of
essence. A definition, he says, is a statement of a thing's essential nature. The notion of essence is an intimate part of every philosophy subsequent to Aristotle, until we come to modern times. It is, in my opinion, a hopelessly muddle-headed notion, but its historical importance requires us to say something about it.

    一件事物的“本质”看来就是指“它的那样一些性质，这些性质一经变化就不能不丧失事物自身的同一性”。苏格拉底可以有时候愉悦，有时候悲哀；有时候健康，有时候生病。既然他可以变化这些性质而又不失颇为苏格拉底，所以这些就不属于他的本质。但是苏格拉底是人则应该认为是苏格拉底的本质的东西，尽管一个信仰灵魂轮回的毕达哥拉斯派不会承认这一点。事实上，“本质”的问题乃是一个如何用字的问题。我们在不同的情况下对于多少有所不同的事件使用了同一的名字，我们把它们认为是一个单一的“事物”或“人”的许多不同的表现。然而事实上，这只是口头上的方便。因而苏格拉底的“本质”就是由这样一些性质所组成的，缺乏了这些性质我们就不会使用“苏格拉底”这个名字。这个问题纯粹是个语言学的问题：一个字可以有本质，但是一件事物则不能有本质。

The "essence" of a thing appears to have meant "those of its properties which it cannot change
without losing its identity." Socrates may be sometimes happy, sometimes sad; sometimes well,
sometimes ill. Since he can change these properties without ceasing to be Socrates, they are no
part of his essence. But it is supposed to be of the essence of Socrates that he is a man, though a Pythagorean, who believes in transmigration, will not admit this. In fact, the question of "essence" is one as to the use of words. We apply the same name, on different occasions, to
somewhat different occurrences, which we regard as manifestations of a single "thing" or
"person." In fact, however, this is only a verbal convenience. The "essence" of Socrates thus
consists of those properties in the absence of which we should not use the name "Socrates." The
question is purely linguistic: a word may have an essence, but a thing cannot.

    “实体”的概念也象“本质”的概念一样，是把纯属语言学上方便的东西转移到形而上学上面来了。我们在描述世界的时候发现把某一些事情描写为“苏格拉底”一生中的事件，把某一些其他的事情描写为“史密斯先生”一生中的事件，是很方便的事。这就使我们想到“苏格拉底”或者“史密斯先生”是指某种经历了若干年代而持久不变的东西，并且在某种方式下要比对他所发生的那些事件更为“坚固”、更为“真实”。如果苏格拉底有病，我们就想苏格拉底在别的时候是健康的，所以苏格拉底的存在与他的疾病无关；可是另一方面，疾病也必需某个人有病。但是虽然苏格拉底并不必须有病，然而却必须有着某种东西出现于他，假如他要被人认为是存在的话。所以他实际上并不比对他所发生的那些事情更为“坚固”。 “实体”若是认真加以考虑的话，实在是个不
可能避免种种困难的概念。实体被认为是某些性质的主体，而且又是某种与它自身的一切性质都迥然不同的东西。但是当我们抽掉了这些性质而试图想象实体本身的时候，我们就发现剩下来的便什么也没有了。再用另一种方式来说明这个问题：区别一种实体与另一种实体的是什么呢？那并不是性质的不同，因为按照关于实体的那种逻辑来说，性质的不同要先假定有关的两种实体之间有着数目的差异。所以两种实体必须刚好是二，而其本身又不能以任何方式加以区别。那么，我们究竟怎样才能发现它们是二呢？

The conception of "substance," like that of "essence," is a transference to metaphysics of what is
only a linguistic convenience. We find it convenient, in describing the world, to describe a certain number of occurrences as events in the life of "Socrates," and a certain number of others as events in the life of "Mr. Smith." This leads us to think of "Socrates" or "Mr. Smith" as denoting something that persists through a certain number of years, and as in some way more "solid" and "real" than the events that happen to him. If Socrates is ill, we think that Socrates, at other times, is well, and therefore the being of Socrates is independent of his illness; illness, on the other hand, requires somebody to be ill. But although Socrates need not be ill, something must be occurring to him if he is to be considered to exist. He is not, therefore, really any more "solid" than the things that happen to him.

    “实体”若是认真加以考虑的话，实在是个不可能避免种种困难的概念。实体被认为是某些性质的主体，而且又是某种与它自身的一切性质都迥然不同的东西。但是当我们抽掉了这些性质而试图想象实体本身的时候，我们就发现剩下来的便什么也没有了。再用另一种方式来说明这个问题：区别一种实体与另一种实体的是什么呢？那并不是性质的不同，因为按照关于实体的那种逻辑来说，性质的不同要先假定有关的两种实体之间有着数目的差异。所以两种实体必须刚好是二，而其本身又不能以任何方式加以区别。那么，我们究竟怎样才能发现它们是二呢？

"Substance," when taken seriously, is a concept impossible to free from difficulties. A substance
is supposed to be the subject of properties, and to be something distinct from all its properties. But when we take away the properties, and try to imagine the substance by itself, we find that there is nothing left. To put the matter in another way: What distinguishes one substance from another? Not difference of properties, for, according to the logic of substance, difference of properties presupposes numerical diversity between the substances concerned. Two substances, therefore, must be just two, without being, in themselves, in any way distinguishable. How, then, are we ever to find out that they are two?


    事实上，“实体”仅仅是把事件聚集成堆的一种方便的方式而已。我们关于史密斯先生能知道什么呢？当我们看他的时候，我们就看到一套颜色；当我们听他说话的时候，我们就听到一串声音。我们相信他也象我们一样地有思想和感情。但是离开了这些事件而外，史密斯先生又是什么呢？那只是纯粹想象中的一个钩子罢了，各个事件就都被想象为是挂在那上面的。但事实上它们并不需要有一个钩子，就象大地并不需要驮在一个大象的背上一样。用地理区域做一个类比的话，任何人都能看出象（比如说）“法兰西”这样一个字仅不过是语言学上的方便，在它的各个部分之外与之上并没有另一个东西是叫做“法兰西”的。“史密斯先生”也是如此；它是一堆事件的一个集合名字。如果我们把它当作是任何更多的东西，那么它就是指某种完全不可知的东西了，因此对于表现我们所知道的东西来说就并不是必需的。

"Substance," in fact, is merely a convenient way of collecting events into bundles. What can we
know about Mr. Smith? When we look at him, we see a pattern of colours; when we listen to him
talking, we hear a series of sounds. We believe that, like us, he has thoughts and feelings. But
what is Mr. Smith apart from all these occurrences? A mere imaginary hook, from which the
occurrences are supposed to hang. They have in fact no need of a hook, any more than the earth needs an elephant to rest upon. Any one can see, in the analogous case of a geographical region, that such a word as " France" (say) is only a linguistic convenience, and that there is not a thing called "France" over and above its various parts. The same holds of "Mr. Smith"; it is a collective name for a number of occurrences. If we take it as anything more, it denotes something completely unknowable, and therefore not needed for the expression of what we know.


    “实体”一言以蔽之，就是由于把由主词和谓语所构成的语句结构转用到世界结构上面来，而形成的一种形而上学的错误。

"Substance," in a word, is a metaphysical mistake, due to transference to the world-structure of the structure of sentences composed of a subject and a predicate.

    我的结论是：我们在这一章里所探讨过的亚里士多德的学说乃是完全错误的，只有三段论式的形式理论是例外，而那又是无关重要的。今天任何一个想学逻辑的人，假如要去念亚里士多德或者是他的哪一个弟子的话，那就简直是在浪费时间了。可是，亚里士多德的逻辑著作还是表现了伟大的能力的，并且是会对人类有用的，假如这些著作能在一个知识创造力仍然旺盛的时代里出世的话。然而不幸的是，它们正是在希腊思想创造期的结束时才出世的，因而便被人当作是权威而接受了下来。等到逻辑的创造性复兴起来的时候，两千年的统治地位已经使得亚里士多德很难于推翻了。实际上在全部的近代史上，科学、逻辑与哲学每进一步都是冒着亚里士
多德弟子们的反对而争取来的。

I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are
wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. Any
person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle
or any of his disciples. None the less, Aristotle's logical writings show great ability, and would
have been useful to mankind if they had appeared at a time when intellectual originality was still
active. Unfortunately, they appeared at the very end of the creative period of Greek thought, and
therefore came to be accepted as authoritative. By the time that logical orginality revived, a reign of two thousand years had made Aristotle very difficult to dethrone. Throughout modern times, practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of the opposition from Aristotle's disciples.

    ===========================
　　①此处的三段都是全称肯定，即AAA的形式，其所以称为Barbara，是因为这个字的三个元音都是A。——译者
　　②此处的三段是全称否定、全称肯定与全称否定即E、A、E的形式，其所以称为celarent，是因为这个字的三个元音是E、A、E。——译者
　　③此处的三段是全称肯定、特称肯定与特称肯定，即A、I、I的形式，其所以称为Darii，是因为这个字的三个元音是A、I、I。——译者
　　①此处的三段是全称否定、特称肯定与特称否定，即E、I、O的形式，其所以称为�AEerio，是因为这个字的三个元音是E、I、O。——译者