4.

7 Laws of Thought
All truths are based on the Three (3) Basic Laws of Thought. These are the Principle of
Identity, The Principle of Non-Contradiction, and the Principle of Excluded Middle. All other
truths depend on these laws of thought.

4.7.1 The Principle of Identity

This principle can be stated variedly as:
1. A thing is according to what it actually is.
2. Everything is identical to what it is.
3. A thing is whatever it is.
4. Whatever is, is.

If a thing is, then it is; if a thing is not, then it is not. This simply implies that one and
the same thing cannot be different from its own self, for whatever is, is. Say, if this thing is a
pen then this is a pen; or if this pen is black, then this pen is black, for it cannot be otherwise.

4.7.2 The Principle of Non-Contradiction

This principle states that a thing cannot be and not-be at the same time under the
same respect. One and the same thing cannot be and not-be at the same time. If a thing is,
then it cannot be is-not. Say, if a thing is black, then it cannot be not-black. Conversely, if a
thing is not black, then it cannot be not black at the same time, for there will exist a
contradiction.
At a different perspective, we will see this principle is but the Principle of Identity
expressed in a different manner. According to the Principle of Identity, whatever is, is. Thus, it
cannot be is not. This is also what the Principle of Non-Contradiction is stating whatever is,
is; it cannot be is not, because it will be impossible for one and the same thing to be and notbe at the same time under the same respect.

4.7.3 The Principle of Excluded Middle

This principle states that:
1. A thing either is or is not.
2. Everything must either be or not be.

Two contradictories cannot be both true or false together. If one is true, its contradictory
should be false and vice versa. It must be one or the other. There can be no middle ground.
Between being and not-being, there can nothing be in between. Between is and is-not, there
can be no middle ground.
Identity tells us that whatever is, is.

It cannot be is-not as put forward by Non-

Contradiction. And between is and is-not, there is nothing in between, as put forward by the
Excluded Middle.
These principles (Principles of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle) are the
fundamentals in correct thinking and truth. To have them readily present in the mind will give
anyone ease in understanding the properties of propositions when place in opposition to and
with each other.

4.8 The Logical Opposition

Logical Opposition of the Proposition refers to the relationship existing between
propositions with the same subject and predicate terms but differ in terms of quality, or
quantity, or both. The propositions herein involved are the A, E, I, and O propositions, for
they, among themselves, may differ in terms of quality or quantity or both. A and E differ in
terms of quality, while A and I differ in terms of quantity. A and O, on the other hand, differ in
terms of both quality and quantity. We may also pair every proposition to each other. We
have seen the A proposition having been paired with E, I, and O. E and I propositions differ in
quality and quantity. E and O differ in terms of quantity. I and O differ in terms of quality and
so on and so forth.
To make things simple then, let us see the kinds of opposition then that may exist between
said propositions.

4.8.1 Sub-Alternation (A-I; E-O)

This type of opposition exists between propositions that have the same subject and
predicate terms, and the same quality, but differing in terms of quantity. The involved
propositions are called sub-alterns and their relation is known as sub-alternation. Thus, A and
I are (affirmative) sub-alterns, whereas E and O are (negative) sub-alterns. The universal subaltern is called sub-alternant, while the particular sub-altern is called sub-alternate.
e.g.
All men are mortal beings.
Some men are mortal beings.

A proposition (u/+)
I proposition (p/+)

4.8.2 Contradiction (A-O; E-I)

This type of opposition exists between propositions that have the same subject and
predicate terms but differing in terms of both quality and quantity. The involved propositions
are called contradictories and their relation is known as contradiction. Thus, A and O, E and I
are contradictories.
e.g.
All men are mortal beings.

A proposition (u/+)

Some men are not mortal beings.

O proposition (p/+)

All men are not mortal beings.

E proposition (u/-)

Some men are mortal beings.

I proposition (p/+)

4.8.3 Contrariety (A-E)

This type of opposition exists between universal propositions that have the same subject
and predicate terms but differing in terms of quality. The involved propositions are called
contraries and their relation is known as contrariety. Thus, A and E are contraries.
e.g.
All men are mortal beings.

A proposition (u/+)

All men are not mortal beings.

E proposition (u/-)

4.8.4 Sub-Contrariety (I-O)

This type of proposition exists between particular propositions that have the same
subject and predicate terms but differing in terms of quality. The involved propositions are
called sub-contraries and their relation is known as sub-contrariety. Thus I and O are subcontraries.
e.g.
Some men are mortal beings.

I proposition (p/+)

Some men are not mortal beings.

O proposition (p/-)

4.9 The Square of Opposition

4.9.1 Law of Sub-Alternation (A-I, I-A; E-O, O-E)

The Law of Sub-Alternation can be stated as follows:
1. The truth of the universal involves the truth of the particular.
2. The truth of the particular, however, does not necessarily involve that of the universal.
3. The falsity of the particular involves the falsity of the universal.
4. The falsity of the universal, however, does not necessarily involve that of the
particular.

The relation of the universal to the particular is similar to the relation of the whole to its
parts. The truth about the whole involves or includes the truth of the parts. Whatever is true
to the whole must also be true to each and every part of the whole; whatever is true to all is
therefore true to some.
As applied to the present discussion, it can be thus stated that if the sub-alternant
(universal) is true, the sub-alternate (particular) is also true, because the particular is involved
or included in the universal. However, the truth of the particular does not necessarily involve
that of the universal. What is true to some need not be true to all. Thus, the law says that the
truth of the particular does not necessarily involve that of the universal.
In brief, the first phase of the above cited law of sub-alternation tells us that:

1.

If A is true, then I is also true.

If E is true, then O is also true.

1.

If I is true, then A is doubtful (may be true, may be false).

If O is true, then E is doubtful (may be true, may be false).

The second phase of the Law of Sub-Alternation on the other hand, on the other hand, is
telling us that falsity of the particular would necessarily involve or include the falsity of the
universal. What is false to about a certain part of the whole would inevitably false if applied to
the whole which involves or includes the same (certain) part. What is false to some is
necessarily false to all. However, if a certain fact is false as applied to the whole, the same
cannot necessarily be said about each part of the same whole. What is false to all may not
necessarily be (also) false to some. Simply put:

1.

If I is false, then A is also false.

If O is false, then E is also false.

1.

If A is false, then I is doubtful (may be true, may be false).

If E is false, then O is doubtful (may be true, may be false).

4.9.2 Law of Contradiction (A-O, O-A; E-I, I-E)

Contradiction, as earlier mentioned, is considered by most logicians as a perfect form of
opposition because of the formal exclusion of contradictories from each other. The Law of
Contradiction can be stated as:
Contradictories cannot be true together nor can they be false together.
As contradictories would formally exclude each other, both cannot be affirmed at the
same time or even be denied at the same time. Consequently, if one is true, its contradictory
must be false and if one is false, then its contradictory must necessarily be true. In this
discussion of opposition, we can therefore briefly have the following rules:

1.

If A is true, then O is false.

If O is true, then A is false.
If E is true, then I is false.
If I is true, then E is false.

1.

If A is false, then O is true.

If O is false, then A is true.
If E is false, then I is true.

If I is false, then E is true.

4.9.3 Law of Contrariety (A-E, E-A)

Contrariety refers to the relation of universal propositions that have the same subject
and predicate terms, but differing in terms of quality. Propositions involved herein are the A
and E propositions. They are, therefore, contrary to each other, or simply, contraries. The Law
of Contrariety may be stated as follows:
Contraries cannot be true together, but they can be false together.
As contraries refer to the extremes among objects of a series that belong to the same
class or genus, both cannot be true at the same time. If one extreme is applicable, then the
other extreme cannot anymore be applied. Then, if one is true the contrary must be false.
However, if one extreme is not applicable, then we may not necessarily conclude whether the
other extreme is applicable or not. It may or may not be applicable. Thus, if one is false, then
the contrary is unknown, because it may be true or false.
In brief,
1. If A is true, then E is false.
If E is true, then A is false.

1. If A is false, then E is doubtful (may be true, may be false).

If E is false, then A is doubtful (may be true, may be false).

4.9.4 Law of Sub-Contrariety

Sub-contraries (or under the contraries) are those un between the contraries. A and E
are contraries. A refers to all, while E refers to none. Between the all and none may be some
(I = some are; O = some are not). Thus, contraries have some things in between and they
are sub-contraries.
The Law of Sub-Contrariety can be stated as follows:

Sub-contraries cannot be both false together, but they can be true together.
Sub-contraries cannot be false together, because it is already possible for the contraries
to be false together. If we are talking about only four types of propositions, namely A, E, I, and
O, and if contraries (A and E) can already be false together, then it will be impossible for I and
O to be both false. Otherwise no truth is had. Among the four options, at least one must be
true. Thus, sub-contraries cannot be both false together.
However, sub-contraries can be both true together (but not necessarily). If the
extremes or the contraries are both false at the same time, then it would mean that the all and
none cannot apply. If all and none are both false, it may be because some are ( I), and/or
some are not (O).
Briefly then,

1.

If I is false, then O is true.

If O is false, then I is true.

1. If I is true, then O is doubtful (may be true, may be false).

If O is true, then I is doubtful (may be true, may be false).

4.10 Eduction
Eduction is the formulation of a new proposition by either interchanging the subject and the
predicate terms of an original proposition and/or by the use or removal of negatives. There are
four Kinds of Eduction, viz.: Conversion, Obversion, Contraposition, and Inversion.

4.10.1 Conversion is the formulation of a new proposition by interchanging the subject

and predicate of an original proposition but leaving its quality unchanged. There are two
kinds: Simple and Partial.
a.

Rules in Simple Conversion (E-E, I-I):

1. Interchange S and P.
2. Retain the quality.
3. Maintain the quantity

a.

Rules in Partial Conversion (A-I, E-O):

1. Interchange S and P.
2. Retain the quality.
3. Reduce the quantity.

4.10.2 Obversion is the formulation of a new proposition by retaining the subject and
quantity of an original proposition, changing its quality, and using as predicate the
contradictory of the original predicate. It is Education by the use or removal of negatives.
Rules in Obversion:
1.

Retain the S.

2.

Maitain the quantity.

3.

Change the quality.

4. As P, use the contradictory of the original P.

4.10.3 Contraposition is the formulation of a new proposition whose subject is the

contradictory of the original predicate. It is a combination of Obversion and Conversion. The

original proposition is contraponend, while the newly formed proposition is called contraposit
or contrapositive. There are two kinds, namely: Partial/Simple and Complete.
a.

Rules in Partial/Simple Contraposition (A-E, E-I, O-I)

1. Obvert (rules in Obversion will be applied).
2. Convert (applicable rules in Conversion will be employed).

How to check?
1.

The S is the contradictory of the original P.

2.

The quality is changed.

3.

The P is the original S.

a.

Rules in Complete Contraposition (A-A, E-O, O-O):

1. Obvert.
2. Then, convert the obverse.
3. Then, obvert the converse of the obverse.

How to check?
1.

The S is the contradictory of the original P.

2.

The quality is not changed.

3.

The P is the contradictory of the original S.

4.10.4 Inversion is the formulation of a new proposition whose subject is the

contradictory of the original subject. The original proposition is called intervend while the
newly formed proposition is called inverse. Only A and E have inverses. There are two kinds,
namely: Partial and Complete Inversion.
a. Rules in Partial Inversion (A-O, E-I):
1. Reduce the quantity.
2. Quality is changed.
3. S is the contradictory of the original S.
4. P is retained.

a. Rules in Complete Conversion (A-I, E-O):

1. Reduce the quantity.

2. Quality is retained.
3. S is the contradictory of the original S.
4. P is the contradictory of the original P.