El artículo trata sobre la negación estoica y su crítica a la fórmula aristotélica según los testimonios de Apuleyo, Alejandro de Afrodisias y Boecio. La crítica se divide en tres aspectos: (i) sistematicidad (ya que una misma regla no se aplica a todo tipo de proposición); (ii) universalidad (ya que todo par contradictorio no divide la verdad y la falsedad sin excepción alguna); y (iii) rigurosidad (ya que el sujeto de la proposición puede no existir o no ser lo que (...) creemos que es). Se concluye que el fondo de la crítica no se relaciona con que una fórmula es inconsistente o hace imposible la lógica y sus operaciones, sino que tiene relación con cuál fórmula es más ambigua y menos preferible. (shrink)

This paper sets out to evaluate the claim that Aristotle’s Assertoric Syllogistic is a relevance logic or shows significant similarities with it. I prepare the grounds for a meaningful comparison by extracting the notion of relevance employed in the most influential work on modern relevance logic, Anderson and Belnap’s Entailment. This notion is characterized by two conditions imposed on the concept of validity: first, that some meaning content is shared between the premises and the conclusion, and second, that the premises (...) of a proof are actually used to derive the conclusion. Turning to Aristotle’s Prior Analytics, I argue that there is evidence that Aristotle’s Assertoric Syllogistic satisfies both conditions. Moreover, Aristotle at one point explicitly addresses the potential harmfulness of syllogisms with unused premises. Here, I argue that Aristotle’s analysis allows for a rejection of such syllogisms on formal grounds established in the foregoing parts of the Prior Analytics. In a final section I consider the view that Aristotle distinguished between validity on the one hand and syllogistic validity on the other. Following this line of reasoning, Aristotle’s logic might not be a relevance logic, since relevance is part of syllogistic validity and not, as modern relevance logic demands, of general validity. I argue that the reasons to reject this view are more compelling than the reasons to accept it and that we can, cautiously, uphold the result that Aristotle’s logic is a relevance logic. (shrink)

Professor Girle suggests that the ancient Athenian interest in Aristotle’s syllogistic flowed from a preoccupation with debate in the form of a dialogue game. But other cultures, especially in India, also had a preoccupation with debate that could be characterized in the same way. This kind of explanation seems to us to ignore the elephant in the room: the fact that, in ancient Athens, dialogue and debate were not merely a game. They were the life and death of the state. (...) Many Athenians felt that foolish policies had cost the state dearly, especially during the Peloponnesian War, and many of them blamed those policies on shoddy political reasoning in the Assembly. (Plato hammers at this theme relentlessly.) And tellingly, it is only in the wake of such tragedies that Aristotle’s syllogistic finally emerged. We think that any credible explanation of the ancient Greek interest in formal logic needs to include this grim political reality. (shrink)

Jan Łukasiewicz is known primarily as the founder of the three-valued system of logic. It is also generally renowned that his reason for introducing many-valued systems of logic was an attempt to refute determinism. When he developed the three-valued and n-valued logic, he employed these systems in his arguments against determinism. On the contrary, Łukasiewicz preferred the four-valued system of logic that is not suitable for a refutation of determinism in his latest period. It seems, however, that determinism still interested (...) Łukasiewicz, as he discussed its denial in his last work, the second edition of the book Aristotle’s syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. The aim of my paper is to introduce the issue and describe the relation of these two topics primarily in the latest period of Łukasiewicz’s work. There are several possible solutions to the issue. However, Łukasiewicz never addressed the issue clearly in his published works. Therefore, the solutions might be supported or contradicted by his unpublished works in the future. (shrink)

This paper presents the link between Arthur N. Prior and logicians that belonged to the Lvov-Warsaw School. Although certain members of the Lvov-Warsaw School influenced Prior’s views, the amount and the form of the impact are still under discussion. Prior also cooperated with some of them in the development of his systems of logic. This paper focuses on four main areas in which Prior admitted adopting ideas from the Lvov-Warsaw School: systems of propositional logic, the history of logic, modal and (...) temporal logic and ontology. Prior’s published works as well as his correspondence, which is stored in Prior’s Nachlass, are used to describe the influence. (shrink)

The goal of this paper is to present a new reconstruction of Aristotle's assertoric logic as he develops it in Prior Analytics, A1-7. This reconstruction will be much closer to Aristotle's original...

After presenting the rules of Eleatic antilogic, i.e., dialectic, I argue that Zeno was a practitioner, and, on the basis of key passages from Plato’s Parmenides, that his paradoxes of divisibility and movement were notreductio ad absurdum, but simple derivation of impossibilities meant to ridicule Parmenides’ adversaries. Thus, Zeno did not try to prove that there is no motion, but simply derived this consequence from premises held by his opponents. I argue further that these paradoxes were devised, in accordance with (...) Eleatic antilogic, following a scheme that included hypotheses and their contradictories, within which the subject is to be treated both “in relation to itself,” and “in relation to other things”. (shrink)

In this paper we provide an interpretation of Aristotle's rule for the universal quantifier in Topics Θ 157a34–37 and 160b1–6 in terms of Paul Lorenzen's dialogical logic. This is meant as a contribution to the rehabilitation of the role of dialectic within the Organon. After a review of earlier views of Aristotle on quantification, we argue that this rule is related to the dictum de omni in Prior Analytics A 24b28–29. This would be an indication of the dictum’s origin in (...) the context of dialectical games. One consequence of our approach is a novel explanation of the doctrine of the existential import of the quantifiers in dialectical terms. After a brief survey of Lorenzen's dialogical logic, we offer a set of rules for dialectical games based on previous work by Castelnérac and Marion, to which we add here the rule for the universal quantifier, as interpreted in terms of its counterpart in dialogical logic. We then give textual evidence of the use of that rule in Plato's dialogues, thus showing that Aris... (shrink)

Avec l’article « Aristotle’s natural deduction system », publié en 1974, J. Corcoran a contribué à diffuser une nouvelle perspective sur les écrits logiques d’Aristote et sur la théorie du syllogisme en particulier. Dans cet article, Corcoran affirme que, dans les premiers chapitres des Premiers Analytiques, Aristote ne propose pas un système axiomatique, qui supposerait une logique sous-jacente, ainsi que le pensait Łukasiewicz, mais plutôt un système de déduction naturelle, avec des dimensions métalogiques. Notre propos est ici basé sur une (...) courte monographie de Kurt Ebbinghaus, intitulée Ein formales Model der Syllogistik des Aristoteles (1964), où est fixé le canon de cette nouvelle perspective mentionnée plus haut et qui a été développé dans le cadre conceptuel de la « logique opérative » de Paul Lorenzen. Ebbinghaus développe une reconstruction formelle montrant que l’approche d’Aristote relève de la « théorie de la preuve », non seulement pour ce qui concerne le système d’inférence sous-jacent, mais aussi pour ce qui concerne les éléments métalogiques. C’est notamment à travers ce dernier aspect que se manifeste une différence majeure par rapport à la reconstruction de Corcoran. Alors que celui-ci pose que le système d’inférence d’Aristote est enraciné dans une sémantique de théorie des modèles (élaborée par Corcoran lui-même), Ebbinghaus comprend que la théorie du syllogisme a été développée à partir d’une approche de la signification par des règles (« rule based »), semblables aux règles d’un jeu. En fait, la reconstruction d’Ebbinghaus offre une lecture pragmatiste de la syllogistique d’Aristote, qui, tel est notre propos, paraît non seulement beaucoup plus proche du point de vue d’Aristote que ne l’est la sémantique de théorie des modèles proposée par Corcoran, mais qui, de plus, permet de saisir l’unité systématique de la théorie du syllogisme. (shrink)

This article studies the mathematical properties of two systems that model Aristotle's original syllogistic and the relationship obtaining between them. These systems are Corcoran's natural deduction syllogistic and ?ukasiewicz's axiomatization of the syllogistic. We show that by translating the former into a first-order theory, which we call T RD, we can establish a precise relationship between the two systems. We prove within the framework of first-order logic a number of logical properties about T RD that bear upon the same properties (...) of the natural deduction counterpart ? that is, Corcoran's system. Moreover, the first-order logic framework that we work with allows us to understand how complicated the semantics of the syllogistic is in providing us with examples of bizarre, unexpected interpretations of the syllogistic rules. Finally, we provide a first attempt at finding the structure of that semantics, reducing the search to the characterization of the class of models of T RD. (shrink)

Since the time of Aristotle's students, interpreters have considered Prior Analytics to be a treatise about deductive reasoning, more generally, about methods of determining the validity and invalidity of premise-conclusion arguments. People studied Prior Analytics in order to learn more about deductive reasoning and to improve their own reasoning skills. These interpreters understood Aristotle to be focusing on two epistemic processes: first, the process of establishing knowledge that a conclusion follows necessarily from a set of premises (that is, on the (...) epistemic process of extracting information implicit in explicitly given information) and, second, the process of establishing knowledge that a conclusion does not follow. Despite the overwhelming tendency to interpret the syllogistic as formal epistemology, it was not until the early 1970s that it occurred to anyone to think that Aristotle may have developed a theory of deductive reasoning with a well worked-out system of deductions comparable in rigor and precision with systems such as propositional logic or equational logic familiar from mathematical logic. When modern logicians in the 1920s and 1930s first turned their attention to the problem of understanding Aristotle's contribution to logic in modern terms, they were guided both by the Frege-Russell conception of logic as formal ontology and at the same time by a desire to protect Aristotle from possible charges of psychologism. They thought they saw Aristotle applying the informal axiomatic method to formal ontology, not as making the first steps into formal epistemology. They did not notice Aristotle's description of deductive reasoning. Ironically, the formal axiomatic method (in which one explicitly presents not merely the substantive axioms but also the deductive processes used to derive theorems from the axioms) is incipient in Aristotle's presentation. Partly in opposition to the axiomatic, ontically-oriented approach to Aristotle's logic and partly as a result of attempting to increase the degree of fit between interpretation and text, logicians in the 1970s working independently came to remarkably similar conclusions to the effect that Aristotle indeed had produced the first system of formal deductions. They concluded that Aristotle had analyzed the process of deduction and that his achievement included a semantically complete system of natural deductions including both direct and indirect deductions. Where the interpretations of the 1920s and 1930s attribute to Aristotle a system of propositions organized deductively, the interpretations of the 1970s attribute to Aristotle a system of deductions, or extended deductive discourses, organized epistemically. The logicians of the 1920s and 1930s take Aristotle to be deducing laws of logic from axiomatic origins; the logicians of the 1970s take Aristotle to be describing the process of deduction and in particular to be describing deductions themselves, both those deductions that are proofs based on axiomatic premises and those deductions that, though deductively cogent, do not establish the truth of the conclusion but only that the conclusion is implied by the premise-set. Thus, two very different and opposed interpretations had emerged, interestingly both products of modern logicians equipped with the theoretical apparatus of mathematical logic. The issue at stake between these two interpretations is the historical question of Aristotle's place in the history of logic and of his orientation in philosophy of logic. This paper affirms Aristotle's place as the founder of logic taken as formal epistemology, including the study of deductive reasoning. A by-product of this study of Aristotle's accomplishments in logic is a clarification of a distinction implicit in discourses among logicians--that between logic as formal ontology and logic as formal epistemology. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 56, Issue 3-4, pp 292 - 319 With William of Ockham and John Buridan, Walter Burley is often listed as one of the most significant logicians of the medieval period. Nevertheless, Burley’s contributions to medieval logic have received notably less attention than those of either Ockham or Buridan. To help rectify this situation, the author here provides a comprehensive examination of Burley’s account of consequences, first recounting Burley’s enumeration, organization, and division of consequences, with particular attention to (...) the shift from natural and accidental to formal and material consequence, and then locating Burley’s contribution to the theory of consequences in the context of fourteenth-century work on the subject, detailing its relation to the earliest treatises on consequences, then to Ockham and Buridan. (shrink)

De acordo com Aristóteles, conhecemos algo cientificamente quando apreendemos a causa pela qual essa coisa é e apreendemos, também, certa relação necessária entre aquilo que pretendemos conhecer e o que descobrimos ser a causa adequada que explica por que tal fato é o caso. Além disso, o filósofo identifica o conhecimento científico com a posse de um silogismo científico ou demonstração. Neste trabalho, analisamos a relação entre a teoria demonstrativa que Aristóteles desenvolve, principalmente, no livro I dos Segundos Analíticos e (...) sua teoria silogística dos Primeiros Analíticos I e tentamos responder por que o conhecimento científico deve ser via silogismo. Também procuramos explicitar como as noções de causa e de necessidade, pelas quais Aristóteles define o conhecimento científico, são contempladas pela exigência de que as proposições de uma demonstração sejam per se. Finalmente, discutiremos como essas noções de per se, necessidade e causa se encaixam na estrutura silogística, uma vez que conhecer algo cientificamente é possuir um silogismo científico. (shrink)