Search results for 'Aristotelian logic' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  60
    John Corcoran (2014). ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC AND EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 20 (1):131-2.
    John Corcoran and George Boger. Aristotelian logic and Euclidean geometry. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 20 (2014) 131. -/- By an Aristotelian logic we mean any system of direct and indirect deductions, chains of reasoning linking conclusions to premises—complete syllogisms, to use Aristotle’s phrase—1) intended to show that their conclusions follow logically from their respective premises and 2) resembling those in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Such systems presuppose existence of cases where it is not obvious that the (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  2
    James Wilkinson Miller (1938). The Structure of Aristotelian Logic. London, K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd..
    Originally published in 1938. This compact treatise is a complete treatment of Aristotle’s logic as containing negative terms. It begins with defining Aristotelian logic as a subject-predicate logic confining itself to the four forms of categorical proposition known as the A, E, I and O forms. It assigns conventional meanings to these categorical forms such that subalternation holds. It continues to discuss the development of the logic since the time of its founder and address traditional (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  3.  36
    Margaret Cameron & John Marenbon (eds.) (2011). Methods and Methodologies: Aristotelian Logic East and West, 500-1500. Brill.
    This book examines the medieval tradition of Aristotelian logic from two perspectives.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  32
    Roy T. Cook (2003). Aristotelian Logic, Axioms, and Abstraction. Philosophia Mathematica 11 (2):195-202.
    Stewart Shapiro and Alan Weir have argued that a crucial part of the demonstration of Frege's Theorem (specifically, that Hume's Principle implies that there are infinitely many objects) fails if the Neo-logicist cannot assume the existence of the empty property, i.e., is restricted to so-called Aristotelian Logic. Nevertheless, even in the context of Aristotelian Logic, Hume's Principle implies much of the content of Peano Arithmetic. In addition, their results do not constitute an objection to Neo-logicism so (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  5.  15
    Phillip H. Wiebe (1991). Existential Assumptions for Aristotelian Logic. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:321-328.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  9
    L. Goddard (2000). The Inconsistency of Aristotelian Logic? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (4):434 – 437.
    I want to pull together some well-known facts which, when taken together, provide us with a plausible, and I think persuasive, argument that Aristotle's logic is inconsistent. We cannot, of course, hope to show that it is formally inconsistent since he does not present us with a fully worked-out formal system. On the other hand, we do have Lukasiewicz's formal version of Aristotelian logic which he proves consistent. (edited).
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. James Wilkinson Miller (2015). The Structure of Aristotelian Logic. Routledge.
    Originally published in 1938. This compact treatise is a complete treatment of Aristotle’s logic as containing negative terms. It begins with defining Aristotelian logic as a subject-predicate logic confining itself to the four forms of categorical proposition known as the _A, E, I _and_ O_ forms. It assigns conventional meanings to these categorical forms such that subalternation holds. It continues to discuss the development of the logic since the time of its founder and address traditional (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Jinmei Yuan (2000). Can Aristotelian Logic Be Translated Into Chinese: Could There Be a Chinese "Harry Stottlemeier"? Dissertation, University of Hawai'i
    This dissertation is a comparative study of Aristotelian and Chinese logic. I briefly overview the reports of difficulties in understanding that derives from cultural differences. I claim that these difficulties not only result from the fact that concepts in each language fail to match properly, but also from the fact that the logical spaces themselves are structured differently. Aristotelian logic is based on the structure of a classificatory system---a hierarchical structure of names for kinds of things (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  6
    D. F. Siemens Jr (1993). On Wiebe's “Existential Assumptions for Aristotelian Logic”. Journal of Philosophical Research 18:271-275.
    This comment calls attention to the nature of the Aristotelian and classical logics, and the difficulty of representing their judgments and inferences by means of Venn diagrams. The meaning of ‘all’ in the different calculi produces problems. A second problem is that the specification of existence in Venn diagrams for statements and arguments cannot be restricted to a single class, overlooked by Wiebe. This problem is further complicated by his adoption of classical (Renaissance) syllogistic, which is inconsistent. Aristotle’s term (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  4
    Shukri B. Abed (1991). Aristotelian Logic and the Arabic Language in Alfarabi. State University of New York Press.
    The first part of the book examines language as a tool of logic, and deals with Alfarabi's analysis of the meanings of various terms as they are used in logic and philosophy.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  11.  9
    John N. Martin (2004). Themes in Neoplatonic and Aristotelian Logic: Order, Negotiation, and Abstraction. Ashgate.
    This book shows otherwise. John Martin rehabilitates Neoplatonism, founded by Plotinus and brought into Christianity by St. Augustine.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  12.  41
    Klaus Glashoff (2010). An Intensional Leibniz Semantics for Aristotelian Logic. Review of Symbolic Logic 3 (2):262-272.
    Since Freges terms were meant to refer always to sets, that is, entities composed of individuals. Classical philosophy up to Leibniz and Kant had a different view on this questionBegriffes syntaxhighercorresponding to the idea which Leibniz used in the construction of his characteristic numbers. Thus, this paper is an addendum to Corcorans theory via predicate logic.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  13. Colin Leslie Dean (2005). Juxtaposing 2 Contradictory Views of Freud: The Apotheosis of Logic ; the Undermining of the Epistemological Validity of Logic: Freud Rejects Aristotelian Logic as the Criteria to Assess the 'Truths' of Psychoanalysis and Thus Becomes a Precursor to Quantum Mechanics and Mathematics Like Wise Abandonment of Aristotelian Logis as an Epistemic Condition of 'Truth' in Certain Situations. Gamahucher Press.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. B. H. Smart, Richard Whately & Treacher &. Co Whittaker (1829). Practical Logic or Hints to Theme-Writers: To Which Are Now Added Some Prefatory Remarks on Aristotelian Logic, with Particular Reference to a Late Work of Dr. Whatley's. Whittaker, Treacher, & Co.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  20
    Julie Brumberg-Chaumont (2015). Universal Logic and Aristotelian Logic: Formality and Essence of Logic. Logica Universalis 9 (2):253-278.
    The rediscovery of Aristotle’s works on syllogisms in the Latin world, especially the Sophistici Elenchi and then the Prior Analytics, gave rise to sophisticated views on the nature of syllogistic form and syllogistic matter in the thirteenth century. It led to debates on the ontology of the syllogism as studied in the Prior Analytics, i.e. the syllogism made of letters and the four logical constants a/e/i/o, with deep consequences on the definition of logic as a universal method for all (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  4
    Julie Brumberg-Chaumont (2015). Erratum To: Universal Logic and Aristotelian Logic: Formality and Essence of Logic. Logica Universalis 9 (2):279-279.
    The rediscovery of Aristotle’s works on syllogisms in the Latin world, especially the Sophistici Elenchi and then the Prior Analytics, gave rise to sophisticated views on the nature of syllogistic form and syllogistic matter in the thirteenth century. It led to debates on the ontology of the syllogism as studied in the Prior Analytics, i.e. the syllogism made of letters and the four logical constants a/e/i/o, with deep consequences on the definition of logic as a universal method for all (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  8
    George Englebretsen (1992). Parry and Hacker`s Aristotelian Logic. Informal Logic 14 (1).
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  5
    Susanne K. Langer (1937). Review: Oliver L. Reiser, Non-Aristotelian Logic and the Crisis in Science. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 2 (2):88-89.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  16
    Carl G. Hempel (1937). A Purely Topological Form of Non-Aristotelian Logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 2 (3):97-112.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  1
    Paul Bernays (1938). Review: Carl G. Hempel, A Purely Topological Form of Non-Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 3 (2):91-92.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  1
    P. T. Geach (1957). Review: E. Roxon, A Note on Some Misunderstandings of Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 22 (1):94-94.
  22.  1
    E. Roxon (1955). A Note on Some Misunderstandings of Aristotelian Logic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 33 (2):107 – 111.
    The author discusses what he deems an oversight in prior's article on lukasiewicz's book "aristotle's syllogistic". He thinks prior missed lukasiewicz's exposure of the "symbolic logicians' fairy tale" which is the attempt to fit aristotle's logic into the boolean and russellian systems by "the lopping and stretching of inconvenient limbs." he concludes that lukasiewicz has "broken the ice that had begun to form" on traditional logic and that logic did not begin in the nineteenth century. (staff).
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  1
    Edward A. Hacker (1967). Number System for the Immediate Inferences and the Syllogism in Aristotelian Logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 8 (4):318-320.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. I. M. Bochenski (1955). Review: Takeo Sugihara, Particular and Indefinite Propositions in Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 20 (2):172-172.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. Tadeusz Czezowski (1959). Review: Antoni Korcik, Leibniz's Method of Interpreting Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 24 (3):215-215.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. Virgil Hinshaw (1947). Review: Delton Thomas Howard, Analytical Syllogistics. A Pragmatic Interpretation of the Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 12 (2):51-52.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Henry W. Johnstone (1960). Review: John J. Morrison, The Existential Import of a Proposition in Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 25 (4):339-339.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. C. H. Langford (1939). Review: James Wilkinson Miller, The Structure of Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 4 (3):121-122.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. E. J. Lemmon (1956). Review: Marian W. Heitzman, The Philosophical Foundations of the Aristotelian Logic and the Origin of the Syllogism. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 21 (4):389-389.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  6
    John Marenbon (ed.) (2007). The Many Roots of Medieval Logic: The Aristotelian and the Non-Aristotelian Traditions: Special Offprint of Vivarium 45, 2-3 (2007). [REVIEW] Brill.
    The specialized essays in this collection study whether non-Aristotelian traditions of ancient logic had a role for medieval logicians. Special attention is given to Stoic logic and semantics, and to Neoplatonism.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Charles Morton (1995). Aristotelian and Cartesian Logic at Harvard: Charles Morton's a Logick System & William Brattle's Compendium of Logick. Published by the Colonial Society of Massachusetts and Distributed by the University Press of Virginia.
    Machine generated contents note: ARISTOTELIAN AND CARTESIAN LOGIC AT HARVARD -- by Rick Kennedy -- I. Introduction --II. Religiously-Oriented, Dogmatically-Inclined Humanistic Logics from the Renaissance to the Seventeenth Century -- A. Melanchthon and Aristotelianism 01 -- B. Richardson and Ramism 16 -- C. Aristotelianism, Ramism, and Schematic Thinking 25 -- D. Puritan Favoritism From Ramus to Descartes 32 -- E. Cartesian Logic and Christian Skepticism 37 -- F. The Religious and Dogmatic Orientation of The Port-'Royalfogic 42 -- (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. Oliver L. Reiser (1937). Non-Aristotelian Logic and the Crisis in Science. Journal of Symbolic Logic 2 (2):88-89.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. John N. Martin (2005). Themes in Neoplatonic and Aristotelian Logic. Ars Disputandi 5.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. John J. Morrison (1955). The Existential Import of a Proposition in Aristotelian Logic. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 15 (3):386-393.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35.  46
    Paolo Mancosu (1992). Aristotelian Logic and Euclidean Mathematics: Seventeenth-Century Developments of the Quaestio de Certitudine Mathematicarum. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 23 (2):241-265.
  36.  7
    N. E. (1939). The Structure of Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophy 36 (7):189-190.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Nicolás F. Lori & Alex H. Blin (2010). Application of Quantum Darwinism to Cosmic Inflation: An Example of the Limits Imposed in Aristotelian Logic by Information-Based Approach to Gödel's Incompleteness. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 15 (2):199-211.
    Gödel’s incompleteness applies to any system with recursively enumerable axioms and rules of inference. Chaitin’s approach to Gödel’s incompleteness relates the incompleteness to the amount of information contained in the axioms. Zurek’s quantum Darwinism attempts the physical description of the universe using information as one of its major components. The capacity of quantum Darwinism to describe quantum measurement in great detail without requiring ad-hoc non-unitary evolution makes it a good candidate for describing the transition from quantum to classical. A baby-universe (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  82
    Margaret Cameron & John Marenbon (2010). Aristotelian Logic East and West, 500-1500: On Interpretation and Prior Analytics in Two Traditions Introduction. Vivarium 48 (1-2):1-6.
    This article is currently available as a free download on ingentaconnect.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  11
    Niels Öffenberger (1975). Aristotelian Logic and Epistemology. Philosophy and History 8 (1):23-25.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  6
    Robert Goedecke (1961). 7. For the Best Listing of the Differences Between Aristotle's Logic and Aristotelian Logic. Or, Alternatively, for the Best Account Showing That the Differences Are Non-Existent or Minor. Review of Metaphysics 15 (2):319-321.
  41.  5
    Paul Carus (1910). Non-Aristotelian Logic. The Monist 20 (1):158-159.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42. Roberto Poli (1993). Vasil'év, Nicholas A. Logic and Metalogic. Imaginary (Non-Aristotelian) Logic. Axiomathes 3:325-329.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  43.  12
    Gerhard Biller (1984). The Modern Significance of Aristotelian Logic. Vol. I. Philosophy and History 17 (1):25-27.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  1
    William T. Parry & Edward A. Hacker (1991). Aristotelian Logic. State University of New York Press.
    Proceedings of an international research and development conference, Tuscon, Arizona, October 1985. One hundred and twenty-eight papers are presented in this hefty volume.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  45.  5
    Howard Pospesel (1994). Aristotelian Logic. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (1):241-243.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  34
    A. C. Lloyd (1955). Neoplatonic Logic and Aristotelian Logic-I. Phronesis 1 (1):58-72.
  47.  7
    Gary Bedell (1992). Aristotelian Logic. Review of Metaphysics 46 (1):175-176.
  48.  18
    Charles J. Kelly (1992). Aristotelian Logic. Teaching Philosophy 15 (3):298-300.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  13
    Paul Jacoby (1950). A Triangle of Opposites for Types of Propositions in Aristotelian Logic. New Scholasticism 24 (1):32-56.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  50.  7
    William H. Kane (1961). 7. For the Best Listing of the Differences Between Aristotle's Logic and Aristotelian Logic. Or, Alternatively, for the Best Account Showing That the Differences Are Non-Existent or Minor. Review of Metaphysics 15 (2):321-324.
1 — 50 / 1000