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

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Margaret Cameron & John Marenbon (eds.) (2011). Methods and Methodologies: Aristotelian Logic East and West, 500-1500. Brill.score: 66.0
    This book examines the medieval tradition of Aristotelian logic from two perspectives.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Roy T. Cook (2003). Aristotelian Logic, Axioms, and Abstraction. Philosophia Mathematica 11 (2):195-202.score: 60.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Phillip H. Wiebe (1991). Existential Assumptions for Aristotelian Logic. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:321-328.score: 60.0
    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 (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. L. Goddard (2000). The Inconsistency of Aristotelian Logic? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (4):434 – 437.score: 60.0
    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).
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. D. F. Siemens (1993). On Wiebe's “Existential Assumptions for Aristotelian Logic”. Journal of Philosophical Research 18:271-275.score: 57.0
    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 (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Eric M. Brown, Logic II: The Theory of Propositions.score: 54.0
    This is part two of a complete exposition of Logic, in which there is a radically new synthesis of Aristotelian-Scholastic Logic with modern Logic. Part II is the presentation of the theory of propositions. Simple, composite, atomic, compound, modal, and tensed propositions are all examined. Valid consequences and propositional logical identities are rigorously proven. Modal logic is rigorously defined and proven. This is the first work of Logic known to unite Aristotelian logic (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Susanne Bobzien (2006). Logic, History Of: Ancient Logic. In Donald M. Borchert (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Thomson Gale.score: 54.0
    ABSTRACT: A comprehensive introduction to ancient (western) logic from earliest times to the 6th century CE, with a focus on issues that may be of interest to contemporary logicians and covering important topics in Post-Aristotelian logic that are frequently neglected (such as Peripatetic hypothetical syllogistic, the Stoic axiomatic system of propositional logic and various later ancient developments).
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Susanne Bobzien (2006). Ancient Logic. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.score: 54.0
    ABSTRACT: A comprehensive introduction to ancient (western) logic from earliest times to the 6th century CE, with an emphasis on topics which may be of interest to contemporary logicians. Content: 1. Pre-Aristotelian Logic 1.1 Syntax and Semantics 1.2 Argument Patterns and Valid Inference 2. Aristotle 2.1 Dialectics 2.2 Sub-sentential Classifications 2.3 Syntax and Semantics of Sentences 2.4 Non-modal Syllogistic 2.5 Modal Logic 3. The early Peripatetics: Theophrastus and Eudemus 3.1 Improvements and Modifications of Aristotle's Logic (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. 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.score: 54.0
    . In the XIXth century there was a persistent opposition to Aristotelian logic. Nicolai A. Vasiliev (1880–1940) noted this opposition and stressed that the way for the novel – non-Aristotelianlogic was already paved. He made an attempt to construct non-Aristotelian logic (1910) within, so to speak, the form (but not in the spirit) of the Aristotelian paradigm (mode of reasoning). What reasons forced him to reassess the status of particular propositions and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. 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.score: 54.0
    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  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. 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.score: 54.0
    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 -- (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Klaus Glashoff (2010). An Intensional Leibniz Semantics for Aristotelian Logic. Review of Symbolic Logic 3 (2):262-272.score: 51.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. John N. Martin (2004). Themes in Neoplatonic and Aristotelian Logic: Order, Negotiation, and Abstraction. Ashgate.score: 51.0
    This book shows otherwise. John Martin rehabilitates Neoplatonism, founded by Plotinus and brought into Christianity by St. Augustine.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. 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.score: 51.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. James Wilkinson Miller (1938). The Structure of Aristotelian Logic. London, K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd..score: 51.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Carl G. Hempel (1937). A Purely Topological Form of Non-Aristotelian Logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 2 (3):97-112.score: 48.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Ahmad Ighbariah (2012). Between Logic and Mathematics: Al-Kindī's Approach to the Aristotelian Categories. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 22 (1):51-68.score: 48.0
    What is the function of logic in al-Kind's theory of categories as it was presented in his epistle On the Number of Aristotle's Books (F treats the Categories as a logical book, but in a manner different from that of the classical Aristotelian tradition. He ascribes a special status to the categories Quantity (kammiyya) and Quality (kayfiyya), whereas the rest of the categories are thought to be no more than different combinations of these two categories with the category (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Stephen Theron (2002). The Interdependence of Semantics, Logic, and Metaphysics as Exemplified in the Aristotelian Tradition. International Philosophical Quarterly 42 (1):63-91.score: 48.0
    A general metaphysical account of logic, meaning, and reference that developed from the Greeks through the medievals and up into modem times can be called Aristotelian. “Copernican” claims (Kant, Frege), radically to replace this paradigm as quasi-“Ptolemaic,” actually participated in the prolonged decline of scholasticism, after Aquinas in particular. We need to recognize, or to remember, thepriority of being to truth and not to conflate them. We need to explicate the origin of thinking (abstraction) as at one remove (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. George Englebretsen (1992). Parry and Hacker`s Aristotelian Logic. Informal Logic 14 (1).score: 48.0
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. 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.score: 48.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. 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.score: 48.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. E. Roxon (1955). A Note on Some Misunderstandings of Aristotelian Logic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 33 (2):107 – 111.score: 48.0
    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).
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Paul Bernays (1938). Review: Carl G. Hempel, A Purely Topological Form of Non-Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 3 (2):91-92.score: 48.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. I. M. Bochenski (1955). Review: Takeo Sugihara, Particular and Indefinite Propositions in Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 20 (2):172-172.score: 48.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Tadeusz Czezowski (1959). Review: Antoni Korcik, Leibniz's Method of Interpreting Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 24 (3):215-215.score: 48.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. P. T. Geach (1957). Review: E. Roxon, A Note on Some Misunderstandings of Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 22 (1):94-94.score: 48.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. 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.score: 48.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. 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.score: 48.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. C. H. Langford (1939). Review: James Wilkinson Miller, The Structure of Aristotelian Logic. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 4 (3):121-122.score: 48.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. 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.score: 48.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. 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.score: 45.0
    This article is currently available as a free download on ingentaconnect.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Susanne Bobzien (2002). The Development of Modus Ponens in Antiquity: From Aristotle to the 2nd Century AD. Phronesis 47 (4):359 - 394.score: 45.0
    'Aristotelian logic', as it was taught from late antiquity until the 20th century, commonly included a short presentation of the argument forms modus (ponendo) ponens, modus (tollendo) tollens, modus ponendo tollens, and modus tollendo ponens. In late antiquity, arguments of these forms were generally classified as 'hypothetical syllogisms'. However, Aristotle did not discuss such arguments, nor did he call any arguments 'hypothetical syllogisms'. The Stoic indemonstrables resemble the modus ponens/tollens arguments. But the Stoics never called them 'hypothetical syllogisms'; (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. 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.score: 45.0
  34. A. C. Lloyd (1955). Neoplatonic Logic and Aristotelian Logic-I. Phronesis 1 (1):58-72.score: 45.0
  35. 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.score: 45.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. A. C. Lloyd (1955). Neo-Platonic Logic and Aristotelian Logic - II. Phronesis 1 (2):146-159.score: 45.0
  37. Nicolas A. Vasil'év (1993). Imaginary (Non-Aristotelian) Logic. Axiomathes 4 (3):353-355.score: 45.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. D. J. Allan (1961). Aristotelian Logic. The Classical Review 11 (01):34-.score: 45.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Paul Henle & Henry Bradford Smith (1935). A Note on the Validity of Aristotelian Logic. Philosophy of Science 2 (1):111-114.score: 45.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Paul Jacoby (1950). A Triangle of Opposites for Types of Propositions in Aristotelian Logic. New Scholasticism 24 (1):32-56.score: 45.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Hubert G. Alexander (1971). Transformational Grammar and Aristotelian Logic. Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 2 (1/2):57-64.score: 45.0
  42. D. J. Allan (1961). Aristotelian Logic Günther Patzig: Die aristotelische Syllogistik. (Abh. d. Akad. d. Wiss. in Göttingen, Phil.-hist. KL, 3. Folge, Nr. 42.) Pp. 207. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1959. Paper, DM. 19.80. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 11 (01):34-36.score: 45.0
  43. I. M. Bocheński (1956). Scholastic and Aristotelian Logic. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 30:112-117.score: 45.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Richard J. Connell (1965). Does Modern Symbolic Logic Contain Aristotelian Logic as a Part? Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 39:183-194.score: 45.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Richard H. Popkin (1947). An Examination of Two Inconsistencies in Aristotelian Logic. Philosophical Review 56 (6):670-681.score: 45.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Jinmei Yuan (2005). "Kinds, Lei" in Ancient Chinese Logic: A Comparison to "Categories" in Aristotelian Logic. History of Philosophy Quarterly 22 (3):181 - 199.score: 45.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. F. S. C. Northrop (1928). An Internal Inconsistency in Aristotelian Logic. The Monist 38 (2):193-210.score: 45.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Oliver L. Reiser (1936). Modern Science and Non-Aristotelian Logic. The Monist 46 (2):299-317.score: 45.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Earl C. Cunningham (1952). The Extensional Limits of Aristotelian Logic. Educational Theory 2 (2):92-107.score: 45.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Andrzej Kawczak (1964). The Philosophical Significance of Modern Formal Logic and Its Relation to Aristotelian Logic. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 38:95-102.score: 45.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000