David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Research 16:321-328 (1991)
This paper addresses the question of what existential assumptions are needed for the Aristotelian interpretation of the relationships between the four categorical propositions. The particular relationships in question are those unique to the Aristotelian logic, namely, contrariety, subcontrariety, subaltemation, conversion by limitation, and contraposition by limitation. The views of several recent authors of logic textbooks are surveyed. While most construe the Aristotelian logic as capable of being preserved by assuming that the subject class has a member, Irving Copi construes that logic as requiring that four assumptions about class membership be made. These are that the subject, predicate, complement of subject, and complement of predicate classes all have members. It is argued that only three assumptions about class membership are needed, viz., that subject, predicate, and complement of predicate classes have members
|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
Dwayne Hudson Mulder (1996). The Existential Assumptions of Traditional Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 17 (1-2):141-154.
D. F. Siemens Jr (1993). On Wiebe's “Existential Assumptions for Aristotelian Logic”. Journal of Philosophical Research 18:271-275.
V. A. Bocharov (1983). Subject-Predicate Calculus Free From Existential Import. Studia Logica 42 (2-3):209 - 221.
Tao Jiang (2005). The Problematic of Continuity: Nishida Kitarō and Aristotle. Philosophy East and West 55 (3):447-460.
Greg Restall (2005). Logic: An Introduction. Routledge.
Valentin A. Bazhanov (2008). Non-Classical Stems From Classical: N. A. Vasiliev's Approach to Logic and His Reassessment of the Square of Opposition. [REVIEW] Logica Universalis 2 (1):71-76.
Dmitrij Skvortsov (1997). Not Every "Tabular" Predicate Logic is Finitely Axiomatizable. Studia Logica 59 (3):387-396.
Dag Westerståhl (1989). Aristotelian Syllogisms and Generalized Quantifiers. Studia Logica 48 (4):577-585.
Paul Thom (1982). Conversion of Propositions Containing Singular or Quantified Terms in Pseudo-Scotus. History and Philosophy of Logic 3 (2):129-149.
Keith M. Parsons (2010). Rational Episodes: Logic for the Intermittently Reasonable. Prometheus Books.
Antonino Drago (2008). The Square of Opposition and the Four Fundamental Choices. Logica Universalis 2 (1):127-141.
Guy Politzer (2003). No Problem for Aristotle's Subject and Predicate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (3):298-299.
K. R. Popper (1946). Logic Without Assumptions. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 47:251 - 292.
Heinrich Wansing (1999). Predicate Logics on Display. Studia Logica 62 (1):49-75.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads7 ( #209,687 of 1,410,455 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #177,872 of 1,410,455 )
How can I increase my downloads?