David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Phronesis 45 (2):87 - 137 (2000)
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 ἐστι' 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||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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Niki Pfeifer (2006). Contemporary Syllogistics: Comparative and Quantitative Syllogisms. In G. Kreuzbauer & G. J. W. Dorn (eds.), Argumentation in Theorie Und Praxis: Philosophie Und Didaktik des Argumentierens. Lit. 57--71.
Susanne Bobzien (2002). Propositional Logic in Ammonius. In Helmut Linneweber-Lammerskitten & Georg Mohr (eds.), Interpretation und Argument. Koenigshausen & Neumann.
Phil Corkum (forthcoming). Is Aristotle's Syllogistic a Logic? History and Philosophy of Logic.
Peter Kreeft (2005). Socratic Logic. St. Augustine's Press.
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. Classical Quarterly 50 (01):247-.
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 (2000). Wholly Hypothetical Syllogisms. Phronesis 45 (2):87-137.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #156,919 of 1,140,064 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #147,976 of 1,140,064 )
How can I increase my downloads?