Paper short abstract:

This paper explains that NISHI Amane discovered the natural form of the proposition. His formula is : イハロナリ。イ stands for the Subject 、ロ stands for the Predicate. He put no quantifiers on the Subject . He realized that the subject word in Japanese sentences stands for the pattern.

Paper long abstract:

NISHI Amane is the champion of the Japanese Enlightenment in the Meiji Era. He was born and brought up in the Confucian stream. He was trained as a Syusi school boy and changed his mind to become Sorai student in his youth days.

Nishi was sent to Holland as a visiting fellow, where he studied Law and Economics, as well as Philosophy in general. As he discovered that the logic is the basis of all knowledge in the West, he was eager to introduce the Logic to the Japanese intellectual horizon. He wrote 致知啓蒙　introduction to the Logic and published it. Nishi was a student of Sir William Hamilton of Edinburgh,. Nishi encountered the Hamilton`s Lectures of Logic at Leyden, which he brought back to Japan. He studied them carefully and captured the spirit of both the Logic and the Hamilton's version of it.

Nishi`s Introduction of Logic form the two parts. First chapter explains the formal structure of the proposition. Second chapter illustrates the Syllogism as such. In his formulation of the logical structure of the proposition, Nishi adopted the Hamilton`s symbols which stand for the quantification of the terms. It is well known that Hamilton quantifies both the Subject and the Predicate in his formulation of the logical structure of the proposition. Nishi invented new signs for the Universals and the Particulars. Round mark for the former, half round mark for the latter. It is clearly shown that Nishi quantifies not only the Subject but also the Predicate, as he put those symbols both to イand ロ, イstands for the Subject ロ stands for the Predicate in his propositional form.

However, if you see the examples of he Japanese proposition, the scene changed drastically. Nishi put no quantifier, to neither the Subject nor the Predicate. He just omits them. These fact remains unexplained. I argue that Nishi grasps the sense and references of the Subject as patterns not as the individual objects. Patterns escape and remain beyond the quantification.