Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 6.djvu/363

 HEGEL'S TEEATMENT OF THE SUBJECTIVE NOTION. 347 JUDGMENT OF NECESSITY. Categorical Judgment. The general propositions, such as All A is B, which we reached in the Judgment of Allness, involve the existence of some connexion between the Universals A and B. Such a proposition cannot merely mean that we have enumerated all the Individuals who have the quality A, and, finding out that each of them has the quality B, have summed up our various discoveries. For such Judgments would not be Uni- versal at all. They would be mere collections of Singular Judgments, and therefore, of course, unable to perform their task of transcending the defects of Singular Judgments. Our Judgments of Allness then mean that the possession of the one Universal is connected with the possession of the other, not merely by a uniform accident but by some rela- tion between the Universals which brings it about as a necessity. 1 This brings us to the next triad, which Hegel calls the Judgment of Necessity. The first form of this is the Categorical Judgment. This, as is to be expected, is practically identical with the Judgment of Allness. It only affirms, in so many words, that connexion between the Universals which formed the essence of the Judgment of Allness. This slight increase in explicitness is marked by discarding the form of Subsumption which was still left in the Judgment of Allness. That is, instead of saying " All lions are mammals," we now say " The lion is a mammal ". Or again, instead of " All Privy Councillors are styled Eight Honourable," we say " The Privy Councillor is styled Right Honourable ". The last example may serve to remind us that the Categorical Judgment is not confined to ultimate truths, nor to propositiona dealing with what Mill calls Natural Kinds. Any connexion, which can be asserted as always existing between two Universals, can be expressed in a Categorical Judgment. Hypothetical Judgment. This is only a more explicit way of putting the connexion between Universals which constitutes the Categorical Judg- ment. It follows immediately from the Categorical Judg- ment. If we say " The A is B," this asserts that B is one of 1 Whether this necessity may not be based on a number of Singular Judgments, although it cannot be those Judgments, is another question. We shall have to discuss it later on, when we come to deal with the Syllogism of Reflexion.