Thomistic article analysis directions
This assignment has two parts: the first part asks you to schematize the objections and replies of the
article; the second asks you to summarize Thomas' own answer to the question – i.e. the part of the
article that begins with “I answer that...” and ends just before the beginning of Thomas' response to the
objections. Below follow, in order, the directions for the first and second parts of the assignment.
Part I: How to write the objections and replies for your Thomistic article analysis
Directions
1.
Objections should be laid out schematically in a number chart with multiple levels. The
outermost level should use capital Roman numerals (I. II. III.), with each Roman Numeral stating the
general conclusion at the top, and indicating the start of a new objection. The next outermost rung of
your number chart should be capital letters (A. B. C.), followed by lower case Roman numerals (i. ii.
iii.), then lower case letters (a. b. c.). If more levels are needed, this pattern is next repeated with the
same letters followed by a parenthesis.
2.
All rungs outside of the outermost should give premises in support of the conclusion. The rung
of the number chart immediately next to the conclusion rung should give the main two premises in
support of the conclusion, while additional rungs should give the premises that Thomas provides in
support of these premises themselves.
3.
Every conclusion is supported immediately by two premises at most. The relationship “X is the
conclusion of premises Y and Z” is indicated by placing the conclusion X as a heading with its own
number, while the premises Y and Z directly supporting it are listed immediately beneath it indented
one level. If the argument is a syllogism, then the major premise will always be listed first, while the
minor premise will be listed second. If the argument is a modus ponens, modus tollens, or disjunctive
elimination, then list the “if...then” proposition or the disjunct prior to the simple affirmation or denial.
a.
If a premise is itself the conclusion of a syllogism supporting it, then separately list the premises
which support it immediately under it and indented one level. Do this even if this forces a gap between
the major premise and minor premise of an argument: as long as the premises are on separate levels,
their proximity to each other will not affect the clarity of the exposition.
4.
always list the name of the argument that led to a conclusion in parentheses on the far right side
of your page on the same number line as the conclusion itself. For instance, if a conclusion is supported
by an E-A-E figure 1 syllogism, write
(Celarent),
if it is supported by Modus Ponens, write
(Modus Ponens)
5.
If a premise is not mentioned explicitly by Thomas in the objection itself, but is necessary to
make the argument valid, that premise is implicit. To indicate that a premise is implicit, list it in italics.
6.
In order to identify which premise Thomas denies in his opponent's argument, highlight it in
bold and place a footnote next to that premise. In the body of the footnote, state that Thomas denies
that premise and also explain Thomas' reply to the objection.
Informal Key
The following explains the meaning of the symbols I will use to give the deduction rules below. Upper
case letters A through D indicate terms, which may be simple or complex. Lower case letters a, e, i, o
indicate the quality/quantity of the sentence. Upper case letters P through S indicate propositions, also
either simple or complex.
1.
AaB = 'Every A is B', 'B belongs to every A'.
2.
AeB = 'No A is B', 'B belongs to no A'.
3.
AiB = 'Some A is B', 'B belongs to some A'.
4.
AoB = 'Not every A is B', 'B does not belong to every A'.
5.
~ = 'not'
6.
& = 'and'
7.
v = 'or'
8.
P, Q |- R = 'R follows from P, Q'; 'From P, Q, one is permitted to derive R'
9.
P -|- Q = 'Q follows from P and P follows from Q'; 'One is permitted to derive P from Q and
vice versa.'
10.
P|-Q, R = 'One may derive either Q or R (or both) from P'
Derivation Rules
For propositions generally
1.
Modus Ponens
P→Q, P|-Q
2.
Modus Tollens
P→Q, ~Q|-~P
3.
Contraposition
P→Q-|-~Q→~P
4.
Transitivity
P→Q, Q→R|-P→R
5.
vIn
P|-PvQ
Q|-PvQ
6.
Disjunctive Syllogism PvQ, ~Q|-P
PvQ, ~P|-Q
7.
Argument by Cases
PvQ, P→R, Q→R|-R
8.
&In
P, Q|-P&Q
9.
&Out
P&Q|-P, Q
For single propositions with terms indicated
1.
Conversion
AeB-|-BeA
AiB-|-BiA
2.
Obversion
AaB-|-Ae~B
AeB-|-Aa~B
AiB-|-Ao~B
AoB-|-Ai~B
3.
Contraposition
AaB-|-~Ba~A
AoB-|-~Bo~A
4.
Subalternation
AaB|-AiB
AeB|-AoB
5.
&In Subj
AaB|-(A&C)aB
AeB|-(A&C)eB
6.
&Out Subj
(A&B)iC|-AiC, BiC
(A&B)oC|-AoC, BoC
7.
&In Pred
AeB|-Ae(B&C)
AoB|-Ao(B&C)
8.
&Out Pred
Aa(B&C)|-AaB, AaC
Ai(B&C)|-AiB, AiC
9.
vIn Subj
AiB|-(AvC)iB
AoB|-(AvC)oB
10.
vOut Subj
(AvB)aC|-AaC, BaC
(AvB)eC|-AeC, BeC
11.
vIn Pred
AaB|-Aa(BvC)
AiB|-Ai(BvC)
12.
vOut Pred
Ae(BvC)|-AeB, AeC
Ao(BvC)|-AoB, AoC
Syllogisms
1st Figure
1.
Barbara
BaC, AaB |- AaC
2.
Celarent
BeC, AaB |- AeC
3.
Darii
BaC, AiB |- AiC
4.
Ferio
BeC, AiB |- AoC
2nd Figure
1.
Cesare
CeB, AaB |- AeC
2.
Camestres
CaB, AeB |- AeC
3.
Festino
CeB, AiB |- AoC
4.
Baroco
CaB, AoB |- AoC
3rd Figure
1.
Darapti
BaC, BaA |- AiB
2.
Felapton
BeC, BaA |- AoC
3.
Disamis
BiC, BaA |- AiC
4.
Datisi
BaC, BiA |- AiC
5.
Bocardo
BoC, BaA |-AoC
6.
Ferison
BeC, BiA |- AoC
Tips
1.
The sequential order in which premises are stated is not necessarily the same as their logical
order.
2.
Do not look solely at the objections themselves in order to uncover the logical form of the
argument: also pay attention to St. Thomas' responses to the argument. Sometimes he gives an implicit
premise here which is unmentioned in the objection itself
3.
Give the most charitable interpretation to the objections you can. Generally, Thomas does not
ascribe invalid arguments to his objectors: he ascribes valid arguments to them which are unsound.
Part 2: The Exposition
Directions
The directions for the second half of the assignment are fairly straightforward. Take the parts of
Aquinas' article that begin with “On the Contrary” and “I answer that.” These are the parts of the article
that give Thomas' own positive answer to the question the article is about. Tell me what his position is,
and explain how he supports it.
Tips
1.
Your exposition should give me the equivalent of a “play-by-play” commentary on the action of
the text, just as Aquinas himself does for Aristotle in his commentary on Aristotle's De Anima. First,
give me the “big picture” overview of the different parts of Aquinas' answer; after doing this, go
through the successive parts that you listed and fill in the details.
2.
Do not give your own opinion anywhere in the assignment: your role in this assignment is that
of making conspicuous what Thomas is doing. Think of your role not as that of an evaluator of the
argument, but as a narrator and expositor of the logical movement of the text.
3.
Don't just give me the “facts.” Think about, and then explain to me, how the different things
Aquinas says fit together into a whole.
4.
Be succinct. The proper measure of good philosophical writing is not word count, but density.
Try to get across as much content as you can with the fewest words needed.