Part 1 (1/2)
An Essay In Aid Of A Grammar Of a.s.sent.
by John Henry Newman.
PART I. a.s.sENT AND APPREHENSION.
Chapter I. Modes Of Holding And Apprehending Propositions.
-- 1. Modes of Holding Propositions.
1. Propositions (consisting of a subject and predicate united by the copula) may take a categorical, conditional, or interrogative form.
(1) An interrogative, when they ask a Question, (e. g. Does Free-trade benefit the poorer cla.s.ses?) and imply the possibility of an affirmative or negative resolution of it.
(2) A conditional, when they express a Conclusion (e. g. Free-trade therefore benefits the poorer cla.s.ses), and both imply, and imply their dependence on, other propositions.
(3) A categorical, when they simply make an a.s.sertion (e. g. Free-trade does benefit), and imply the absence of any condition or reservation of any kind, looking neither before nor behind, as resting in themselves and being intrinsically complete.
These three modes of shaping a proposition, distinct as they are from each other, follow each other in natural sequence. A proposition, which starts with being a Question, may become a Conclusion, and then be changed into an a.s.sertion; but it has of course ceased to be a question, so far forth as it has become a conclusion, and has rid itself of its argumentative form-that is, has ceased to be a conclusion,-so far forth as it has become an a.s.sertion. A question has not yet got so far as to be a conclusion, though it is the necessary preliminary of a conclusion; and an a.s.sertion has got beyond being a mere conclusion, though it is the natural issue of a conclusion. Their correlation is the measure of their distinction one from another.
No one is likely to deny that a question is distinct both from a conclusion and from an a.s.sertion; and an a.s.sertion will be found to be equally distinct from a conclusion. For, if we rest our affirmation on arguments, this shows that we are not a.s.serting; and, when we a.s.sert, we do not argue. An a.s.sertion is as distinct from a conclusion, as a word of command is from a persuasion or recommendation. Command and a.s.sertion, as such, both of them, in their different ways, dispense with, discard, ignore, antecedents of any kind, though antecedents may have been a _sine qua non_ condition of their being elicited. They both carry with them the pretension of being personal acts.
In insisting on the intrinsic distinctness of these three modes of putting a proposition, I am not maintaining that they may not co-exist as regards one and the same subject. For what we have already concluded, we may, if we will, make a question of; and what we are a.s.serting, we may of course conclude over again. We may a.s.sert, to one man, and conclude to another, and ask of a third; still, when we a.s.sert, we do not conclude, and, when we a.s.sert or conclude, we do not question.
2. The internal act of holding propositions is for the most part a.n.a.logous to the external act of enunciating them; as there are three ways of enunciating, so are there three ways of holding them, each corresponding to each. These three mental acts are Doubt, Inference, and a.s.sent. A question is the expression of a doubt; a conclusion is the expression of an act of inference; and an a.s.sertion is the expression of an act of a.s.sent. To doubt, for instance, is not to see one's way to hold that Free-trade is or that it is not a benefit; to infer, is to hold on sufficient grounds that Free-trade may, must, or should be a benefit; to a.s.sent to the proposition, is to hold that Free-trade is a benefit.
Moreover, propositions, while they are the material of these three enunciations, are the objects of the three corresponding mental acts; and as without a proposition, there cannot be a question, conclusion, or a.s.sertion, so without a proposition there is nothing to doubt about, nothing to infer, nothing to a.s.sent to. Mental acts of whatever kind presuppose their objects.
And, since the three enunciations are distinct from each other, therefore the three mental acts also, Doubt, Inference, and a.s.sent, are, with reference to one and the same proposition, distinct from each other; else, why should their several enunciations be distinct? And indeed it is very evident, that, so far forth as we infer, we do not doubt, and that, when we a.s.sent, we are not inferring, and, when we doubt, we cannot a.s.sent.
And in fact, these three modes of entertaining propositions,-doubting them, inferring them, a.s.senting to them, are so distinct in their action, that, when they are severally carried out into the intellectual habits of an individual, they become the principles and notes of three distinct states or characters of mind. For instance, in the case of Revealed Religion, according as one or other of these is paramount within him, a man is a sceptic as regards it; or a philosopher, thinking it more or less probable considered as a conclusion of reason; or he has an unhesitating faith in it, and is recognized as a believer. If he simply disbelieves, or dissents, he is a.s.senting to the contradictory of the thesis, viz. that there is no Revelation.
Many minds of course there are, which are not under the predominant influence of any one of the three. Thus men are to be found of irreflective, impulsive, unsettled, or again of acute minds, who do not know what they believe and what they do not, and who may be by turns sceptics, inquirers, or believers; who doubt, a.s.sent, infer, and doubt again, according to the circ.u.mstances of the season. Nay further, in all minds there is a certain coexistence of these distinct acts; that is, of two of them, for we can at once infer and a.s.sent, though we cannot at once either a.s.sent or infer and also doubt. Indeed, in a mult.i.tude of cases we infer truths, or apparent truths, before, and while, and after we a.s.sent to them.
Lastly, it cannot be denied that these three acts are all natural to the mind; I mean, that, in exercising them, we are not violating the laws of our nature, as if they were in themselves an extravagance or weakness, but are acting according to it, according to its legitimate const.i.tution.
Undoubtedly, it is possible, it is common, in the particular case, to err in the exercise of Doubt, of Inference, and of a.s.sent; that is, we may be withholding a judgment about propositions on which we have the means of coming to some definitive conclusion; or we may be a.s.senting to propositions which we ought to receive only on the credit of their premisses, or again to keep ourselves in suspense about; but such errors of the individual belong to the individual, not to his nature, and cannot avail to forfeit for him his natural right, under proper circ.u.mstances, to doubt, or to infer, or to a.s.sent. We do but fulfil our nature in doubting, inferring, and a.s.senting; and our duty is, not to abstain from the exercise of any function of our nature, but to do what is in itself right rightly.
3. So far in general:-in this Essay I treat of propositions only in their bearing upon concrete matter, and I am mainly concerned with a.s.sent; with Inference, in its relation to a.s.sent, and only such inference as is not demonstration; with Doubt hardly at all. I dismiss Doubt with one observation. I have here spoken of it simply as a suspense of mind, in which sense of the word, to have ”no doubt” about a thesis is equivalent to one or other of the two remaining acts, either to inferring it or else a.s.senting to it. However, the word is often taken to mean the deliberate recognition of a thesis as being uncertain; in this sense Doubt is nothing else than an a.s.sent, viz. an a.s.sent to a proposition at variance with the thesis, as I have already noticed in the case of Disbelief.
Confining myself to the subject of a.s.sent and Inference, I observe two points of contrast between them.
The first I have already noted. a.s.sent is unconditional; else, it is not really represented by a.s.sertion. Inference is conditional, because a conclusion at least implies the a.s.sumption of premisses, and still more, because in concrete matter, on which I am engaged, demonstration is impossible.
The second has regard to the apprehension necessary for holding a proposition. We cannot a.s.sent to a proposition, without some intelligent apprehension of it; whereas we need not understand it at all in order to infer it. We cannot give our a.s.sent to the proposition that ”x is z,” till we are told something about one or other of the terms; but we can infer, if ”x is y, and y is z, that x is z,” whether we know the meaning of x and z or no.