Does experience furnish any probable reason for inferring that immortality is a fact?
For what does it matter to metaphysics whether by association sensations suggest ideas, and so give rise to ideas of substance and causation a posteriori, or synthetic unity of consciousness combines sensations by a priori notions of substance and causation into objects which are merely mental phenomena of experience, when it is at once allowed by the followers of Hume and Kant alike that reason in any logical use has no power of inferring things beyond the experience of the reasoner?
At the same time, in spite of his sympathy with the whole development of idealism since Kant, which leads him to reject the thing in itself, to modify a priorism, and to stop at transcendent " ideals," without postulates of practical reason, he nevertheless has so much sympathy with Kant's Kritik as on its theories of sense and understanding to build up a system of phenomenalism, according to which knowledge begins and ends with ideas, and finally on its theory of pure reason to accord to reason a power of logically forming an " ideal " of God as ground of the moral " ideal " of humanity - though without any power of logically inferring any corresponding reality.
But even Sigwart's errors are outdone by Lotze, who not only reduces " Every NI is P " so " If S is M, S is P," but proceeds to reduce this hypothetical to the disjunctive, " If S is NI, S is P L or P 2 or 1 33, " and finds fault with the Aristotelian syllogism because it contents itself with inferring " S is P " without showing what P. Now there are occasions when we want to reason in this disjunctive manner, to consider whether S is I n or P 2 or P 3, and to conclude that " S is a particular P "; but ordinarily all we want to know is that " S is P "; e.g.
A deduction is often like an induction, in inferring from particulars; the difference is that deduction combines a law in the major with the particulars in the minor premise, and infers syllogistically that the particulars of the minor have the predicate of the major premise, whereas induction uses the particulars simply as instances to generalize a law.