Wholly Hypothetical Syllogisms
Phronesis 45 (2):87-137 (2000)
| Abstract | ABSTRACT: In antiquity we encounter a distinction of two types of hypothetical syllogisms. One type are the ‘mixed hypothetical syllogisms’. The other type is the one to which the present paper is devoted. These arguments went by the name of ‘wholly hypothetical syllogisms’. They were thought to make up a self-contained system of valid arguments. Their paradigm case consists of two conditionals as premisses, and a third as conclusion. Their presentation, either schematically or by example, varies in different authors. For instance, we find ‘If (it is) A, (it is) B; if (it is) B, (it is) C; therefore, if (it is) A, (it is) C’. The main contentious point about these arguments is what the ancients thought their logical form was. Are A, B, C schematic letters for terms or propositions? Is ‘is’, where it occurs, predicative, existential, or veridical? That is, should ‘A esti’ be translated as ‘it is an A’, ‘A exists’, ‘As exist’ or ‘It is true/the case that A’? If A, B, C are term letters, and ‘is’ is predicative, are the conditionals quantified propositions or do they contain designators? If one cannot answer these questions, one can hardly claim to know what sort of arguments the wholly hypothetical syllogisms were. In fact, all the above-mentioned possibilities have been taken to describe them correctly. In this paper I argue that it would be mistaken to assume that in antiquity there was one prevalent understanding of the logical form of these arguments - even if the ancients thought they were all talking about the same kind of argument. Rather, there was a complex development in their understanding, starting from a term-logical conception and leading to a propositional-logical one. I trace this development from Aristotle to Philoponus and set out the deductive system on which the logic of the wholly hypothetical syllogisms was grounded. | |||||||||
| Keywords | hypothetical syllogisms aristotelian logic post-aristotelian logic | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSusanne Bobzien (2000). Wholly Hypothetical Syllogisms. Phronesis 45 (2):87-137.
Susanne Bobzien (2002). The Development of Modus Ponens in Antiquity : From Aristotle to the 2nd Century AD. Phronesis 47 (4):359-394.
Susanne Bobzien (1997). The Stoics on Hypotheses and Hypothetical Arguments. Phronesis 42 (3):299-312.
Susanne Bobzien (2002). The Development of Modus Ponens in Antiquity: From Aristotle to the 2nd Century AD. Phronesis 47 (4):359-394.
Susanne Bobzien (2002). A Greek Parallel to Boethius' de Hypotheticis Syllogismis. Mnemosyne 55 (3):285-300.
Susanne Bobzien (2000). Why the Order of the Figures of the Hypothetical Syllogisms Was Changed. The Classical Quarterly 50 (01):247-.
Peter Kreeft (2005). Socratic Logic. St. Augustine's Press.
Susanne Bobzien (2002). Propositional Logic in Ammonius. In Helmut Linneweber-Lammerskitten & Georg Mohr (eds.), Interpretation und Argument. Koenigshausen & Neumann.
Colwyn Williamson (1988). How Many Syllogisms Are There? History and Philosophy of Logic 9 (1):77-85.
Susanne Bobzien (2006). Logic, History Of: Ancient Logic. In Donald M. Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Thomson Gale.
Phil Corkum (forthcoming). Is Aristotle's Syllogistic a Logic? History and Philosophy of Logic.
Christopher J. Martin (2007). Denying Conditionals: Abaelard and the Failure of Boethius' Account of the Hypothetical Syllogism. Vivarium 45 (s 2-3):153-168.
F. B. Tarbell (1883). Hypothetical Syllogisms. Mind 8 (32):578-579.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-08-31Total downloads17 ( #71,101 of 549,084 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,084 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
