Summaries of Logic as Understood by Peter of Spain, Term Paper Example

Introduction

How a certain matter or element is classified depends on how it is understood by humans under the direction of rational thinking. This especially concerns the manners by which particular phenomenon are introduced to the world. For instance, the existence of a God along with the different elements that make up religions are all noted to have contributing impacts on the human society. Nevertheless, when it comes to defining the ways by which these matters evolved could be accounted from the application of human logic in rationally reasoning out with the consistent assumptions that intend to explain different elements that are affecting the human community then and now. In relation to the desire of implicating the facts that could support the existence of certain situations and the reason behind the reputation of certain human individuals in the society, the discussion below shall try to explain the overall summary of predicable instantiation of reasoning as per defined by Peter of Spain. Through examining his written work, understanding particular elements of logical explanation shall be given attention to.

What is Predicable?

Confirming the existing relationship of one particular element to another is known to be the process o f reasoning through predicable. The assumption and confirmation of existing elements and how they relate to each other is the primary purpose of utilizing predicable reasoning. It is believed by philosophers that through understanding the connection of one element towards the others that are also existing within a certain locale. The elements expected to be connected to each other may be living or not. Nevertheless, it is the connective role they have with the existence of humanity that makes them consistently important especially when it comes to reestablishing their role in defining the human society.

There are five primary classifications that specifically define predictability. These five classifications include definition, genus, differentia, property and accident. Classification by definition is dependent on how an element is noted based on its essence. In this case, the question ‘what’ is carried into consideration. Genus on the other hand is the definition of a matter based on its established relation with a universal element. This means that they re is a an arrangement of development that is supposed to be followed for one to be classified with the matter accordingly. Most often than not, this type of classification is considered most often in relation to biological connections. A cat for instance is related to another family of cats. However, the sub-classification of cats is basically dependent on both property and differentia. These forms of predicables intend to show a sense of distinction on how one specific type of cat may differ from the other based on characteristic or property. This is the reason why there are many different breeds of cats that are known at present. What a particular specie may possess especially when it comes to physical attributes are noted and are compared with others. Apart from physical attributes that are specifically obvious to the eyes, are elements that are not directly observed by the human eye but are specifically considered fully through biological testing procedures. Through these particular assumptions, it could be realized that somehow, a specie becomes a part of a larger umbrella of noted and clarified elements.

When there are particular characters that are unrecoverable and are unnoted in consideration with the specific recognized elements of the classifications that have already been established, the assumption of the group that an element belongs to becomes dependent on accident. Accident is specifically understood as the foreign element that causes another matter to exist. At one point, Charles Darwin used this particular element of reason to explain his theory about the evolution of life on earth. The transition of one specie to another with characteristics that are relatively far from what the original species may have was used by Darwin to explain how the descendants of dinosaurs [who are now lost in relation to the population they have on earth] developed into particular creatures that have already adapted to the new way of living that they have been involved in. Darwin strongly utilized the said approach of reasoning to be able to convince his audience that it is indeed possible to provide an explanation behind the evolution of creatures and the developments incurred by the different parts of their body have been accounted as the result of adaptation. The supposed ‘accident’ of living in new areas and new locations, having the need to deal with the different pressures that their environment presents them with, several body functions are altered and other particular parts are given birth. Through this manner of reasoning, Darwin was able to create a conviction that it is indeed possible for evolution to occur. The evidences, although at some point may not be that fully acceptable, and yet, because of the reasoning he used to define his theory is basically dependent on what he knew through research and study which later on became the basis of what the world intended to accept as a sense of reality.

In the same manner, Peter [of Spain] intended to show the differential considerations by which logical explanations are put to use especially in relation to larger issues that concern the human society. At this point, it could be understood that there are instances that even though there are no specific evidences that could be used to define a specific matter, a specific element in the society, once the explanations are accepted and recognized to be factual by the general public, then they become the basis of the supposed truth that humans tend to depend on. Religion and its particular doctrines could be assumed to have a dependent source based on logical explanation of the existence of God. While several philosophers provide evidences that the belief over a God who cannot be seen, touched or anything, it could be realized that the number of people believing in God remains at a high rate. This is basically because of the fact that majority believes it. Thus, others who may not have relative understanding over its reality believe the matter anyway because it is what others say so. This is an obvious presentation of how predicable reasoning works especially in defining the most important issues that concern human existence hence explaining how they should deal with the said matters accordingly.

Relatively, it could be understood that the five types of predicables [as suggested by Peter] provide a concrete basis of understanding on how to classify matters accordingly. Nevertheless, it could be analyzed how repetitive these conditions of predicables are. For instance, property and differences are at some point closely related. When the property of any specie is identified then the distinction of differences already occurs in the process. With this in mind, it could be that the classification of the specie based on character differences and property should be considered as one singular approach to the examination of the subject in concern.

The Assumption of Connection and Rationality

Following the common knowledge of many is an important aspect that defines the logic behind human rationality. In consideration with this, Socrates and his relationship with Plato as a teacher could actually be noted as a sense of defining rationality behind the reasoning of connection and predictability. Using the example of genus and species, since Socrates is a teacher of Plato, and Plato is a student of Socrates, one could say that Socrates is in a different genus than Plato. Plato would fall in the species category which is below the genus level where one can place Socrates. Socrates is a teacher, so he exceeds Plato as a student. Socrates is the origin of Plato, or his source since he is his teacher. He, therefore, exceeds Plato and is a predicable. Socrates contradicts with Plato because he is the genus, while Plato is the species. Plato is the intellectual descendent of Socrates because Socrates is Plato’s teacher. Plato’s “knowledge” is derived from “knowledge source.” The knowledge source is Socrates.

Socrates is then considered as a universal predicable. Since Plato is a man, and Socrates is a man, they are predicated universally. Socrates is a rational and mortal animal, and Plato is a rational and mortal animal. Therefore they are one: They can both be call “man.” They both have the same name, “man.” They both can be defined as being “man.” So they are “man” by definition. Additionally, since Plato and Socrates are called “man,” they are predicated by various accounts even though they have the same name. For example, a man is a predicate of the one who can talk, the one in the ocean, and the one flying the airplane. The “account” cannot be said of both Plato and Socrates because the “accounts” are different. For example, Socrates may be the one in the ocean, while Plato is the one flying the airplane. The same “account” cannot be said of both.

The level of balance between Socrates and Plato is recognized to have a correlative distinction based on the relationship that they have shared. Being a teacher and a student, the first provides the latter with specific information and learning. Along with that, the teacher also partakes a sense of behavior and characteristic in instantiating how the student shall develop not only as an intellectual being but as a moral person as well. Because of this instance, human connection between one another is not only based on physical and biological attributes. Instead, it also depends so much on how one individual reacts with the other accordingly.

Proving Rationality

Since S1 proves that Socrates is rational, and S2 proves that Anselm’s Fool is rational, and assuming T1 and T2 we cannot accept that Anselm’s Fool is just as rational Socrates. This is an absurd conclusion. According to T1, Socrates and Anselm’s fool both exceed the animal by the differences that are the rational and mortal. Therefore, both are the same “name.” Socrates and Anselm’s Fool are called “man.” That is all that we can construe from T1. Socrates and Anselm’s Fool are of the same human species. However, as Peter points out, species differ, which makes Socrates and Anselm’s Fool “different.” The species, “man” has differences. Although both Socrates and Anselm’s Fool are both called man, they are individuals. Individuals have differences in thoughts, words, and deeds. It is clear that since Socrates and Anselm’s Fool cannot both have the same thoughts, words and deeds, it is unlikely that both can be rational.

Socrates and Anselm’s Fool have different physical properties. Their brains do not function in the same way, nor do they think the same thoughts. Each perceives what is happening in the physical world in a different way. Neither thinks at the same time, the same thought, in the same manner. In order for the argument to be correct, the men must be “existing” in the same “thought” at the same time. Each man must think the same way. Not only must the thought of both men match in content, it must be thought at the exact time. The same thought, and the same reaction to that thought must occur in each man simultaneously.

Difference does not take strengthening. Neither Socrates nor Anselm’s Fool can change the circumstances under which they think and perceive. In other words, nothing can change the fact that both men are different, or have differences from each other. If both men are different from one another, one could hypothetically be rational while the other is irrational. Following this logic, there is no way for both to be rational at the exact same time. It is more likely that at any given time, one man will be rational while the other is irrational. The argument is invalid because the thoughts, words, and deeds of each man do not occur simultaneously.

Conclusion

Rationality and logical understanding based on the different elements of knowledge with regards predictability of matters are the primary source of definition on how humans tend to show a connection between one individual towards another. May it be related to human relation, animal species, or simply on the different issues that concern humanity, the utilization of predicable reasoning specifically explain matters based on how effective the rational indication existence is practically explained accordingly.