Dialogue

 1 Intro|          other processes of formal logic, presents a very inadequate
 2 Intro|      definition. In the infancy of logic, men sought only to obtain
 3 Intro|          Plato, in the days before logic, seems to be more correct
 4 Intro|          of language.~The ordinary logic is also jealous of the explanation
 5 Intro|              the science of ousia, logic or metaphysics, philosophers
 6 Intro|          mechanism of language and logic is carried by him into another
 7 Intro|          and widened by the formal logic which elevates the defects
 8 Intro|       chiefly in the categories of logic. For abstractions, though
 9 Intro|          The threefold division of logic, physic, and ethics, foreshadowed
10 Intro|            elements’ of scholastic logic which he has thrown down.
11 Intro|           be the sole or universal logic, we naturally reply that
12 Intro|       conceived under the forms of logic, but in which no single
13 Intro|       suspecting that the Hegelian logic has been in some degree
14 Intro|          first and second parts of logic in the Hegelian system has
15 Intro|          divisions of the Hegelian logic bear a superficial resemblance
16 Intro|        divisions of the scholastic logic. The first part answers
17 Intro| reintroducing the forms of the old logic? Who ever thinks of the
18 Intro|            the old, and the common logic is the Procrustes’ bed into
19 Intro|         language of the scholastic logic has become technical to
20 Intro|       neither has all this load of logic extinguished in him the
21 Intro|            touch with the spear of logic the follies and self-deceptions
22 Intro|         trivialities of the common logic and the unmeaningness of ‘
23 Intro|       influences of the scholastic logic.~3. Many of those who are
24 Intro|      recognize in his system a new logic supplying a variety of instruments
25 Intro|          important contribution to logic. We cannot affirm that words