| | |
| Paragraph 1 |
To beg and assume the original question is a species of failure to
demonstrate the problem proposed; |
| Paragraph 2 |
If then it is uncertain whether A belongs to C, and also whether A
belongs to B, and if one should assume that A does belong to B, it
is not yet clear whether he begs the original question, but it is
evident that he is not demonstrating: |
| Paragraph 3 |
Similarly if he should assume that B belongs to C, this being as
uncertain as the question whether A belongs to C, the question is
not yet begged, but no demonstration is made. |
| Paragraph 4 |
If then begging the question is proving what is not self-evident
by means of itself, in other words failing to prove when the failure
is due to the thesis to be proved and the premiss through which it
is proved being equally uncertain, either because predicates
which are
identical belong to the same subject, or because the same predicate
belongs to subjects which are identical, the question may be
begged in
the middle and third figures in both ways, though, if the
syllogism is
affirmative, only in the third and first figures. |