S4 and Aristotle on Three Syllogisms with Contingent Premisses

Aristotle assesses as valid three first figure syllogisms, each of which contains at least one premiss expressing a de re contingency. In fact, all three of these moods (namely, Barbara-QQQ, Barbara-XQM, and Barbara-LQM) are invalid. Utilizing the concept of ampliation, this paper shows how the mood Barbara-QQQ must be refined if it is to be deemed valid. It can then become clear as to how Barbara-XQM and Barbara-LQM can be disambiguated and ultimately validated. In treating all three moods, some theses from S4 will be exploited in the context of distinguishing de dicto and de re modes of attributing possibility and necessity. Various Aristotelian propositional forms and rules of inference, including argumentation by ecthesis, will shape the presentation. The viability of Aristotle’s views on the convertibility of universal negative apodeictic propositions will emerge as decisive in evaluating the success of his modal syllogistic
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5840/jpr_2002_8
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,664
External links
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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
John M. Martin (1997). Aristotle'S Natural Deduction Reconsidered. History and Philosophy of Logic 18 (1):1-15.
Michael Wolff (2010). Vollkommene Syllogismen und reine Vernunftschlüsse: Aristoteles und Kant. Eine Stellungnahme zu Theodor Eberts Gegeneinwänden. Teil 2. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 41 (2):359 - 371.
David Hitchcock (2000). Fallacies and Formal Logic in Aristotle. History and Philosophy of Logic 21 (3):207-221.
Robin Smith (1982). What Is Aristotelian Ecthesis? History and Philosophy of Logic 3 (2):113-127.
Paul Thom (1991). The Two Barbaras. History and Philosophy of Logic 12 (2):135-149.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

27 ( #176,579 of 1,903,037 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

3 ( #264,928 of 1,903,037 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.