99

Logic 99

we could conclude: Some B is not B which absurd.
Hence if no A is B it cannot be true that some A is B that is it must be time that No A is B.
The sollogistic form Ferio is
No B is A
Some C is B
therefore Some C is not A.
If for C we put A we get the premisses above used.
Now in my view observation comes in to assure us that when A is substituted for C we do get these premisses and it also enters in other similar ways.

Aristotle seems to reason that if we were to assume that some A is B supposing C to represent an A that is B we should be abliged to conclude
C is A
C is B
therefore some B is A.
There are reasons why I think this somewhat objectionable; But it seems to me to depend upon the same kind of