SECTION I.

NAMES OF NAMES.

It is of great importance to distinguish this class of terms; to understand well the function which they perform, and to mark the subdivisions into which they are formed. There is not, however, such difficulty in the subject as to require great minuteness in the exposition.

As we have occasion to speak of things; animals, vegetables, minerals; so we have occasion to speak of the marks, which we are under the necessity of using, in order to record or to communicate our thoughts respecting them. We cannot record or communicate our thoughts respecting names, as man, tree, horse, to walk, to fly, to eat, to converse, without marks for them. We proceed in the case of names, as we do in other cases. We form them into classes, some more, some less, comprehensive, and give a name to each.

We have one name, so general as to include them all; Word. That is not a name of any thing. It is a name of the marks which we employ for discourse; and a name of them all. John is a word, mountain is a word, to run is a word, above is a word, and so on.

They are divided into classes, differently for different purposes. The grammarian, who regards chiefly the concatenation of words in sentences, divides them into noun, adjective, pronoun, verb, adverb, preposition, 4 conjunction; these words are none of them names of things. Noun is not a name of a “thing;” it is a name of a “class of words,” as John, James, man, ox, tree, water, love, hatred; the same is the case with adjective, verb, and so of the rest.

The philosopher makes another division of them, adapted to his purposes, which has a more particular reference to their mode of signification. Thus, he divides them into universal, and particular; concrete, and abstract; positive, and negative; equivocal, and univocal; relative, and absolute; and so on.

It is very easy to see that the word “universal,” for example, is not a name of a thing. Things are all individual, not general. The name, “man,” is a “universal,” because it applies to every individual of a class; for the same reason the name “ox,” the name “horse,” the name “dog,” and so on, are universals. The words, “genus” and “species” are synonymous with “universal;” of course they also are names of names. Such is the word “number.” “One,” “two,” “one hundred,” “one thousand,” are “numbers;” in other words, “number” is a general name for each and all of those other names.

Beside our names for names singly, we have occasion to name combinations of names. Thus we have the name “predication.” This is a name for the combination of three words, “subject,” “predicate,” and “copula.” We have the name “sentence,” which never can be less, implicitly or explicitly, than a predication, but is often more. The same is the account of the word “definition.” We have the names “speech,” “oration,” “sermon,” “conversation,” all of them names for a series of sentences. We have 5 also names of written discourse, such as a “volume,” a “book,” a “chapter,” a “section,” a “paragraph.”2

2 A right understanding of the words which are names of names, is of great importance in philosophy. The tendency was always strong to believe that whatever receives a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own; and if no real entity answering to the name could be found, men did not for that reason suppose that none existed, but imagined that it was something peculiarly abstruse and mysterious, too high to be an object of sense. The meaning of all general, and especially of all abstract terms, became in this way enveloped in a mystical haze; and none of these have been more generally misunderstood, or have been a more copious source of futile and bewildering speculation, than some of the words which are names of names. Genus, Species, Universal, were long supposed to be designations of sublime hyperphysical realities; number, instead of a general name of all numerals, was supposed to be the name, if not of a concrete thing, at least of a single property or attribute.

This class of names was well understood and correctly characterized by Hobbes, of whose philosophy the distinction between names of names and of things was a cardinal point.—Ed.

6