St. John's College, Oxford.
Has not your correspondent G. BOOLE fallen into an inaccuracy whilst
contending about the accuracy of another's logic? He seems to employ the
proposition, _all trees are endogens or exogens_, as an example of an
accurate proposition.
I forget the technicalities in which the objection to such a proposition
would be properly expressed; but it cannot well be denied that _all_
comprehends the whole genus, and expresses that whole collectively. If so,
the proposition affirms that the whole genus of trees must either be
acknowledged to be endogens, or else to be _all_ exogens. Does not such an
affirmation require the word _every_ to clear it from ambiguity? Will it be
cleared of ambiguity by saying, "Every tree is endogen or exogen?" Or must
we say "Every tree is either endogen or exogen?"
If your correspondents should happen to take down the second volume of
_Locke on Human Understanding_, b. III. ch. iii. § 11., on "Universals,"
his note will supply them with another knot to unravel, of which I would
gladly see their solution. For he has there said, "Three Bobaques are all
true and real Bobaques, supposing the name of that species of animals
belongs to them." Is this name formed in jest? For the philosopher
sometimes puts on an awkward affectation of humour in his replies to Bishop
Stillingfleet, to whom this note is addressed.