Re: A conjunctis ad divisa

On 23 Jun, 19:28, LauLuna <laureanol...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 23, 10:32 am, William of Ockham <d3uck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





Does anyone know what 'a conjunctis ad divisa' means? I found it in a
logical work by Scotus that I am translating. Google reveals that
Locke uses the same phrase in "Four letters concerning toleration"

http://www.humboldt-studienzentrum.de/typo3/uploads/media/Locke_Lette...

But this is the only reference I can find.

Clearly it's Latin name for a logical fallacy of some kind, but what?
Literally, is it 'from joined to divided', but that won't do as a
translation. I would like to keep it in Latin with a footnote saying
that it is a logical fallacy meaning .... what?

All help gratefully received!

------------------------------ Locke
In the next place, did you, who argue with so much school-subtility,
as if you drank it in at the very fountain; never hear of such an ill
way of arguing as "a conjunctis ad divisa?" There are no arguments
proper and sufficient to bring a man into the belief of what is in
itself false, whilst he knows or believes it to be false; therefore
there are no arguments proper and sufficient to bring a man into the
belief of what is in itself false, which he neither knows nor believes
to be so. A senior sophister would be laughed at for such logic.

I have never heard it before but as a fallacy it could be something
like: whatever holds for a whole, holds for its parts as well.

Perhaps you can confirm or refute this suggestion from the context.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The context Locke uses it is not fallacy of division. The context in
which Scotus uses it suggests it is not a fallacy at all!

.