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.