Precaution of a thought

Basically,
I would say that a thought is preserved for retention.
But if precaution,then.....??

THE word " true " indicates t h e  aim of logic as  does "beautiful "
th a t   of  aesthetics or "good " t h a t  of  ethics.  All sciences have
t r u t h  a s  their goal ; b u t  logic is also concerned with i t  in a quite
,
different way from this.  It has much the  same relation t o  t r u t h
a s  physics has t o  weight or heat.  To discover t ruths  is t h e  task
of all sciences ; i t  falls t o  logic t o  discern t h e  laws of t ruth.   The
word " law " is used in two senses.  When we speak of  laws of
morals  or  t h e   state  we  mean  regulations  which  ought  to  be
obeyed  b u t   with  which  actual  happenings  are  not  always  in

conformity.  Laws  of  nature  are  the   generalization  of  natural
occurrences with which the  occurrences are always in accordance.
It is rather in this sense t h a t  I speak of  laws of  t ruth.   This is,
-
to be sure, not a matter of what happens so much a s  of what is.
Rules for  asserting, thinking, judging,  inferring, follow from t h e
laws  of  t ruth.   And  thus   one  can  very  well  speak  of  laws  of
thought  too.  .  But  there  is  an imminent danger here of  mixing
different things up.  Perhaps the  expression " law of  thought "
is interpreted b y  analogy with " law of  nature " and t h e  general-
ization  of  thinking  a s   a..mental occurrence is meant  by it.  A
law of thought in this sense would be a psychological law.  And
so  one might  come t o  believe t h a t   logic deals with  the  mental
process  of  thinking  and  t h e   psychological  laws  in  accordance


with which  i t  takes  place.  This  would  be  a  misunderstanding
of the  task of  logic, for t r u t h  has not been given t h e  place which
is i t s  due here.  Error and superstition have causes just  a s  much
a s  genuine knowledge.  The assertion  both of  what is false and
of  what is true takes place in accordance with psychological laws.
A derivation from these and a n  explanation of  a mental process
-
t h a t   terminates  in  an  assertion  can  never  take  t h e   place  qf  a
proof  of  what  is  asserted.  Could  not  logical  laws  also  have
played  a  pa r t   in  this  mental  process?  I  do  not  want  t o
dispute this,  but  when i t  is a question of  t r u t h  possibility is not
enough.  Por  i t   is  also  possible  t h a t   something  not  logical
played  a  pa r t   in  t h e   process  and  deflected i t  from  the   t ruth.
. We  can  only  decide  this  after  we  have  discerned  the   laws  of
t r u t h  ; but   then  we  will  probably  be  able  to  do  without  t h e
derivation and explanation of t h e  mental process if i t  is important
t o  us t o  decide whether  t h e  assertion  in which  t h e  process ter-
minates  is  justified.  I n  order  t o   avoid  this  misunderstanding
and to prevent t h e  blurring of the  boundary between psychology
and  logic, I assign t o  logic t h e  task  of  discovering t h e  laws  of
t ruth,   not  of  assertion  or  thought.  The meaning  of  t h e  word
"t rue  " is explained by the  laws of t ruth.