David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
History and Philosophy of Logic 19 (4):187-226 (1998)
Three distinctly different interpretations of Aristotle?s notion of a sullogismos in Prior Analytics can be traced: (1) a valid or invalid premise-conclusion argument (2) a single, logically true conditional proposition and (3) a cogent argumentation or deduction. Remarkably the three interpretations hold similar notions about the logical relationships among the sullogismoi. This is most apparent in their conflating three processes that Aristotle especially distinguishes: completion (A4-6)reduction(A7) and analysis (A45). Interpretive problems result from not sufficiently recognizing Aristotle?s remarkable degree of metalogical sophistication to distinguish logical syntax from semantics and, thus, also from not grasping him to refine the deduction system of his underlying logic. While it is obvious that Aristotle most often uses ?sullogimos? to denote a valid argument of a certain kind, we show that at Prior Analytics A4-6, 7, 45 Aristotle specifically treats a sullogismos as an elemental argument pattern having only valid instances and that such a pattern then serves as a rule of deduction in his syllogistic logic. By extracting Aristotle?s understanding of three proof-theoretic processes, this paper provides new insight into what Aristotle thinks reasoning syllogistically is and, moreover, it resolves three problems in the most recent interpretation that takes a sullogismos to be a deduction
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Edgar Andrade-Lotero & Catarina Dutilh Novaes (2012). Validity, the Squeezing Argument and Alternative Semantic Systems: The Case of Aristotelian Syllogistic. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (2):387-418.
Klaus Glashoff (2010). An Intensional Leibniz Semantics for Aristotelian Logic. Review of Symbolic Logic 3 (2):262-272.
Similar books and articles
D. A. Rees (1950). Aristotle's Analytics W. D. Ross: Aristotle's Prior and Posterior Analytics. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary. Pp. X + 690. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 64 (3-4):114-116.
Mariska Leunissen (2010). Aristotle's Syllogistic Model of Knowledge and the Biological Sciences: Demonstrating Natural Processes. Apeiron 43 (2-3):31-60.
Robin Smith (1981). Some Studies of Logical Transformations in Theprior Analytics. History and Philosophy of Logic 2 (1-2):1-9.
Robin Smith (1982). What Is Aristotelian Ecthesis? History and Philosophy of Logic 3 (2):113-127.
David Hitchcock (2000). Fallacies and Formal Logic in Aristotle. History and Philosophy of Logic 21 (3):207-221.
Katerina Ierodiakonou (2002). Aristotle's Use of Examples in the Prior Analytics. Phronesis 47 (2):127-152.
Katerina Ierodiakonou (2002). Aristotle's Use of Examples in the "Prior Analytics". Phronesis 47 (2):127 - 152.
Added to index2010-08-10
Total downloads9 ( #165,736 of 1,102,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #306,606 of 1,102,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?