54. The Fallacy of Accident and Per Se Predication

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Fallacy of Accident Defined #

• Nature: A fallacy occurring when an accidental predicate is used as if it were essential (per se)
• Form: Maintains the outward appearance of a valid syllogism, making it particularly deceptive
• Authority: Albert the Great notes this is the first and most powerful fallacy in the order of fallacies because it has “the most virtue” (efficacissima)
• Deceptiveness: Aristotle states it even deceives the wise men, particularly when necessary statements are involved

Per Se vs. Per Accidens Predication #

• Per Se (Essential): A predicate belongs to a subject by its very nature or definition
  • Example: “Triangle has three angles equal to two right angles”
  • Example: “Animal is said of cat because the cat is a living body with sensation”
• Per Accidens (Accidental): A predicate belongs to a subject contingently or incidentally
  • Example: “Animal is said of cat because animal is said of dog” (wrong reason)
  • The accidental predication may be necessary in fact but remains accidental in reason

The Problem of Necessary Accidental Predication #

• The Core Issue: Some accidental predications appear necessary, making them extremely deceptive
• Example: “What becomes hard must necessarily be soft” (true, but the softness is accidental)
• The Confusion: Change occurs between opposites, yet we speak as if one opposite becomes the other
• Berquist’s Key Insight: “It seems you can’t deny reason” when a statement appears necessarily true—yet the fallacy lies in confusing what the statement is about

Science vs. Sophistry #

• Thomas Aquinas: “No science which is truly science and has suititude considers about being per accidens”
• Only sophistry (sophistica) concerns itself with accidental predication, using it to deceive
• True science considers what belongs to its subject per se
  • The arithmetician considers what belongs to two as such (even, prime, half of four)
  • The geometer considers what belongs to triangle as such (three sides, angle sum)

Key Arguments #

The Structure of Syllogistic Deception #

• Valid Form, Invalid Content: “Michael is a man; man is said of Bernardo; therefore Michael is said of Bernardo”
  • Each premise is necessary and appears per se
  • Yet the conclusion is false because the order of predication is violated
  • The middle term (man) is taken in different ways

The Axiom of Before and After #

• Principle: Nothing is before or after itself
• Application: When we say “animal is said of cat because animal is said of dog,” we reverse the proper order
• Proper Order: Animal is said of cat because the cat is a living body with sensation—not because animal is said of dog

Change and the Subject Undergoing Change #

• Distinction: It is the butter that becomes hard, not the softness itself
• What Happens: The softness (accident) is lost; the butter (subject) persists and gains hardness
• The Fallacy: Confusing the subject of change with the accident that is lost
• Necessary Connection: Only what is soft can become hard (nothing hard becomes hard), yet this necessity masks the accidental nature of the predication

Important Definitions #

Per Accidens (by accident/accidentally) #

A predicate that belongs to a subject incidentally or not by virtue of its essential nature, though it may be necessarily true given circumstances

Per Se (by itself/essentially) #

A predicate that belongs to a subject by virtue of what that subject is, forming part of its nature or definition

Subject of Change (Subiectum Mutationis) #

The underlying reality that persists through change, distinct from the accidents that come and go

Examples & Illustrations #

The Singular and Universal #

• Fallacious Argument: “The singular is understood; what is understood is universal; therefore the singular is universal”
• Error: The material singular as such is not what is understood; only the universal nature is understood
• Lesson: Confuses what exists (singular) with what is grasped by intellect (universal)

Species and Individual #

• Fallacious Argument: “Socrates is a man; man is a species; therefore Socrates is a species”
• Error: Man is said of Socrates essentially, but species is said of man only accidentally (in the order of predication)
• Defect: Middle term defect—man functions differently in each premise

Animal Predication #

• Fallacious Argument: “A cat is an animal; animal is said of a dog; therefore a cat is said of a dog”
• The Deception: Both premises appear necessary and per se
• The Truth: Animal is said of cat because the cat is a living body with sensation (per se); it is not said of cat because animal is said of dog (per accidens)

Definition and Square #

• Fallacious Argument: “A square is an equilateral right-angled quadrilateral; an equilateral right-angled quadrilateral is a definition; therefore a square is a definition”
• Error: The equilateral right-angled quadrilateral is said of square because it expresses its nature (per se), not because it is a definition (per accidens)

Becoming and Change #

• Fallacious Argument: “Soft butter becomes hard; therefore the soft becomes hard; therefore the soft is hard”
• Correct Understanding: It is the butter (subject) that becomes hard; the softness (accident) is lost
• Parallel Case: “You became a monk; therefore you are a monk” is valid; but “The soft became hard; therefore the soft is hard” is fallacious because softness is not the subject of change
• The Necessity: Only what is soft can become hard, yet this necessity conceals that the softness is accidental to the butter

Necessary Predication Confusion #

• Fallacious Argument: “Michael is necessarily a man; man is necessarily said of Bernardo; therefore Michael is necessarily said of Bernardo”
• The Problem: Confuses necessity in the premises (both per se) with necessity in the order of predication

Questions Addressed #

Why is this fallacy more deceptive than others? #

Because it often involves necessary statements that appear to be per se, making the distinction between what is necessarily true and what is essentially true extremely difficult to detect. The confusion appears reasonable.

How can a syllogism with valid form be fallacious? #

When the middle term is taken in different senses or when a predicate is applied accidentally rather than essentially. The form is preserved but the reasoning is defective.

How does proper use of reason help avoid this fallacy? #

By following Shakespeare’s definition of reason—“the ability for large discourse looking before and after”—one must: (1) understand the essential nature of what is being predicated, (2) understand the proper order and reason for predication, and (3) distinguish per se from per accidens predications.