ABSTRACT
These “ three laws of thought” have been subjected to severe criticism by modern logicians; these criticisms may be summed up in the somewhat Pickwickian formula: ‘They are not laws, they are not laws of thought, and they are not the laws of thought since there are others no less essential.5 We shall examine these criticisms briefly. The first two points may be taken together. Certainly, the ‘laws of thought5 are not state ments of psychological laws, i.e. statements of the ways in which we do think. Unfortunately, we often contradict our selves, we often think (or behave as though we believed) that there is a mean between truth and falsity. The “ laws55 are not made true by the way in which men think; they are state ments of how men ought to think, and will think if, and in so far as, men are thinking rationally. Accordingly, it is far better not to use the description ‘laws of thought5; it is better to call them ‘logical principles5. “ Laws55 suggest at best uniformities in mind and nature, at worst commands. Un fortunately, no one has the power to command us to think logically; even were this not so, we have not always the power to obey such a command. Our thinking is in part determined by our emotional attitudes and our deep-seated prejudices.
