^q. óÓ LOGIC ' OR THE 'EMIT NSE OF REASON. Tile rules of a good distribution -ere much" the-same with those which we-have= before applied to division, which may -be just repeated again in the briefest manner, in order to give ex- amples of them. I. Rule. 'Each part singly taken must contain less than the Whole, but all the,parts taken collectively, or together, must contain neither more nor less than the whole; or as logicians sometimes express it, the,parts -of- the - division ,ought to exhaust the whole thing which is divided. So medicine is justly distributed into' prophylactic, or the art of preserving-ltealth ; and thera- peutic, or the art of restoring health, for there is no-other sort of medicine besides -these two. But then are not well distributed iúto "tall or short, for there are some Of a middle stature. 1I. -In all-distribution we should first consider the larger and more immediate kinds or species, or ranks of being, and not divide a thing at once into the more minute end remote. A genus should- not at once-be divided -into individuals, or -even into the lowest species, if there -be a species superior. -Thus it would be -very improper to divide - animal into-trout, .lobster, eel, dog, bear, eagle, dove, worm, -and butterfly, for these are inferior kinds ; 'whereas- animal ought first to be distributed into-man, beast, -bird, fish, insect ; and then beast should --be distributed into dog,- bear, &c. bird into eagle, dove, &crfisli into trout, eel, lobster, &c. It is irregular also to join any inferior species in the same rank or order With the superior ; -as if we should distinguish animals into birds, bears, and oysters,- &c. it would be a ridiculous distribution. -III. The several parts of a distribution ought to be oppo- site; that is, one species or class of beings in the same rank of division, ought not to contain or include another; so men ought not to be divided into the rich, the poor, the learned, and the tall; for poor men may be both learned and tall, and so may the rich. But it will be objected, are not animated bodies rightly dis- tributed into vegetative and animal, or (as they are usually called) sensitive ? Now the sensitive contains the vegetative nature in it; for- animals grow as well as plants. I answer, that in this, and all such distributions, the-word vegetative signifies merely ve- getative;' and in this sense vegetative will be sufficiently oppo- site to- animal, for it cannot be said of an animal, that it contains mere vegetation in the idea of it. IV. -Let not subdivisions -be too numerous, without neces- sity ; therefore I think quantity is better distinguished at once into'a line, a -surface, and a -solid ; than to say, as Ramus-does, that quantity is either a line, or a thing hued ; and thing lined is either a surface or a solid.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=