"Jede Unterweisung und jedes verständige Erwerben von Wissen entsteht aus bereits vorhandener Kenntnis", beginnt Aristoteles seinen Text und entwickelt seine Lehre vom wissenschaftlichen Beweis, d. h. vom apodiktischen Schluss. Er deckt die Grundprinzipien der Erkenntnis auf, damit ein deduktivisch-wissenschaftliches Wissen möglich wird. Außer einer Präzisierung dieser Lehre unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Wahrheitsfindung werden auch Regeln für die sachgemäße Aufstellung von Definitionen unterbreitet - ein fundamentaler Beitrag zur Entstehung des Wissenschaftsbegriffs. Die Zweite Analytik des Aristoteles ist seit der Spätantike so kontinuierlich (...) wie kaum eine andere philosophische Schrift diskutiert und ausgelegt worden. (shrink)

Aristotle's philosophically most explicit and sophisticated account of the concept of a (primary-)universal proof is found, not in "Analytica Posteriora" 1.4, where he introduces the notion, but in 1.5. In 1.4 Aristotle merely says that a universal proof must be of something arbitrary as well as of something primary and seems to explain primacy in extensional terms, as concerning the largest possible domain. In 1.5 Aristotle improves upon this account after considering three ways in which we may delude (...) ourselves into thinking we have a primary-universal proof. These three sources of delusion are shown to concern situations in which our arguments do establish the desired conclusion for the largest possible domain, but still fail to be real primary-universal proofs. Presupposing the concept of what may be called an immediate proof, in which something is proved of an arbitrary individual, Aristotle in response now demands that a proof be immediate of the primary thing itself and goes on to sketch a framework in which an intensional criterion for primacy can be formulated. For the most part this article is a comprehensive and detailed commentary on Aristotle's very concise exposition in 1.5. One important result is that the famous passage 74a17-25 referring to two ways of proving the alternation of proportions cannot be used as evidence for the development of pre-Euclidean mathematics. (shrink)

Seit dem 2. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert werden die Schriften von Aristoteles kommentiert. Diese Ausgabe enthält griechische Kommentare zu seinem Werk vom 3. bis 8. Jahrhundert n. Chr., u. a. von Alexander von Aphrodiensias, Themistios, Joh. Philoponus, Simplicius in griechischer Sprache.

One of Aristotle's logic treatises, this text is published in the Oxford Classical Text series.

One of Aristotle's logic treatises, this text is published in the Oxford Classical Text series.

Die "Zweite Analytik" ("Analytica Posteriora"), enstanden im 4. Jhdt. v. Chr.,gehört zu den esoterischen Schriften des Aristoteles und präsentiert seine Wissenschaftstheorie, die eine Theorie des Wissens einschließt. Untersucht wird hier die Frage, was Wissenschaft sei und wie sie möglich werde. Von zentraler Bedeutung ist für Aristoteles die These vom Vorrang der Sinneswahrnehmung, die der Entstehung des Wissens vorausgeht: Jede Unterweisung und jedes verständige Erwerben von Wissen entsteht aus bereits vorhandener Kenntnis - aber nach klaren und ausweisbaren Regeln. Die (...) so bestimmte Wissenschaft gliedert sich dann in zwei einander ergänzende Teile. Der eine ist die deduktive Ableitung von Aussagen aus evidenten, ohne weiteren Beweis einleuchtenden Sätzen, die bis in die heutige Zeit als Inbegriff strenger Wissenschaft gilt, der andere die Prinzipienerkenntnis, d.h. die methodisch gewonnene Einsicht in den Kanon und die Geltungskraft der ersten Sätze aller Wissenschaft. Unter einem Beweis, also einer Aussage aus Prinzipien, versteht Aristoteles eine Erkenntnis, die, ausgehend von der Wahrnehmung, Erinnerung und Erfahrung im analytischen Urteil, durch Abstraktion das Allgemeine am Besonderen ermittelt und heraushebt. Die zweisprachige Studienausgabe bietet den deutschen Text in einer revidierten Fassung der vom Herausgeber 1993 in der Berliner Akademie-Ausgabe vorgelegten Übersetzung; der beigegebene griechische Text folgt der Edition von W. R. Ross, Oxford 1964. Die Einleitung führt in die Grundlagen der aristotelischen Wissenschaftstheorie ein, so wie sie in der "Zweiten Analytik "ausgearbeitet wird. (shrink)

Aristotle in Analytica Posteriora presented a notion of proof as a special case of syllogism. In the present paper the remarks of Aristotle on the subject are used as an inspiration for developing formal systems of demonstrative syllogistic, which are supposed to formalize syllogisms that are proofs. We build our systems in the style of J. Łukasiewicz as theories based on classical propositional logic. The difference between our systems and systems of syllogistic known from the literature lays in (...) the interpretation of general positive sentences in which the same name occurs twice (of the form SaS). As a basic assumption of demonstrative syllogistic we accept a negation of such a sentence. We present three systems which differ in the interpretation of specific positive sentences in which the same name occurs twice (of the form SiS). The theories are defined as axiomatic systems. For all of them rejected axiomatizations are also supplied. For two of them a set theoretical model is also defined. (shrink)

Throughout more than two millennia philosophers adhered massively to ideal standards of scientific rationality going back ultimately to Aristotle’s Analytica posteriora . These standards got progressively shaped by and adapted to new scientific needs and tendencies. Nevertheless, a core of conditions capturing the fundamentals of what a proper science should look like remained remarkably constant all along. Call this cluster of conditions the Classical Model of Science . In this paper we will do two things. First of all, (...) we will propose a general and systematized account of the Classical Model of Science. Secondly, we will offer an analysis of the philosophical significance of this model at different historical junctures by giving an overview of the connections it has had with a number of important topics. The latter include the analytic-synthetic distinction, the axiomatic method, the hierarchical order of sciences and the status of logic as a science. Our claim is that particularly fruitful insights are gained by seeing themes such as these against the background of the Classical Model of Science. In an appendix we deal with the historiographical background of this model by considering the systematizations of Aristotle’s theory of science offered by Heinrich Scholz, and in his footsteps by Evert W. Beth. (shrink)

Throughout more than two millennia philosophers adhered massively to ideal standards of scientific rationality going back ultimately to Aristotle’s Analytica posteriora. These standards got progressively shaped by and adapted to new scientific needs and tendencies. Nevertheless, a core of conditions capturing the fundamentals of what a proper science should look like remained remarkably constant all along. Call this cluster of conditions the Classical Model of Science. In this paper we will do two things. First of all, we will (...) propose a general and systematized account of the Classical Model of Science. Secondly, we will offer an analysis of the philosophical significance of this model at different historical junctures by giving an overview of the connections it has had with a number of important topics. The latter include the analytic-synthetic distinction, the axiomatic method, the hierarchical order of sciences and the status of logic as a science. Our claim is that particularly fruitful insights are gained by seeing themes such as these against the background of the Classical Model of Science. In an appendix we deal with the historiographical background of this model by considering the systematizations of Aristotle’s theory of science offered by Heinrich Scholz, and in his footsteps by Evert W. Beth. (shrink)

Im 12. Jahrhundert ging in Byzanz eine bemerkenswerte Blute des Aristotelismus von einem philosophischen Zirkel aus, den die vom politischen Leben ausgeschlossene Kaisertochter Anna Komnene unterhielt. Eustratios von Nikaia und Michael von Ephesos arbeiteten zusammen an einem Kommentar zur Nikomachischen Ethik im Auftrage Annas. Eustratios kommentierte die Bucher I und VI, Michael von Ephesos die Bucher V, IX und X. Ausserdem liegen von Michael mehrere Kommentare zur Naturphilosophie des Aristoteles vor, wahrend wir von Eustratios den hier wiedergegebenen Kommentar zu Buch (...) II der Analytica posteriora besitzen. Die lateinische Ubersetzung des Posteriora-Kommentars (zusammen mit einer kurzen anonymen Erklarung des Werkes) durch den Mediziner Andrea Grazioli leitete eine neue Epoche in der Deutung der aristotelischen Wissenschaftstheorie ein. (shrink)

“Aristotle's successor as director of the Lyceum was Theophrastus, his friend and disciple; Eudemus, another of the Stagirite's important disciples should also be mentioned. Other philosophers belonging to the Peripatetic school were: Aristoxenus, Dikaiarchos, Phanias, Straton, Duris, Chamaeleon, Lycon, Hieronymus, Ariston, Critolaus, Phormio, Sotion, Hermippus, Satyrus and others. Straton even succeeded Theophrastus as director of the Lyceum but his name and those of the other Peripatetics of Aristotle's old school should not be considered in a history of logic as they (...) were mainly concerned with history and the natural sciences. Theophrastus rejoiced in an enormous prestige at this time and for long afterwards. Diogenes Laertius attributes a tremendous number of works to him. Of them a significant proportion are writings on logic: Analytica Priora (3 books); Analytica Posteriora (7 books); Analysis of Syllogisms (1 book); Summary of the Analytic s (1 book); Polemic on the Theory of Euristic Arguments. On Definition (1 book); The First Premises (18 books); The Sophisms (2 books); On the Solution of Syllogisms (1 book); Topics (2 books); On Artless Demonstrations (1 book); On Negation (1 book); On Intellect (1 book); Classifications (2 books); On Entymemes (1 book); On the Appreciation of Syllogism (1 book); On Lies and Truth (1 book); Argumentations (2 books); Theses (3 books); On Definition (2 books); On the Data of Problems (1 book); On the Liar (3 books); Preface to the Topics (1 book); On Arguments proper (1 book); Specifications on The Texts of Syllogisms (1 book). Eudemus also wrote some treatises on logic, concerning which some information has come down to us; Ammonius, in his Commentary On Aristotle's Categories attributes to him a writing on The Analytics -- 'Analitika', and another On Expressions -- Peri lexeos, in which he deals with the grammatical and logical functions of the sentence. The commentator David in Prolegomena to Isagoge by Porphiry also mentions these works.. (shrink)

In the Organon Aristotle describes some deductive schemata in which inconsistencies do not entail the trivialization of the logical theory involved. This thesis is corroborated by three different theoretical topics by him discussed, which are presented in this paper. We analyse inference schema used by Aristotle in the Protrepticus and the method of indirect demonstration for categorical syllogisms. Both methods exemplify as Aristotle employs classical reductio ad absurdum strategies. Following, we discuss valid syllogisms from opposite premises (contrary and contradictory) studied (...) by the Stagerian in the Analytica Priora (B15). According to him, the following syllogisms are valid from opposite premises, in which small Latin letters stand for terms such as subject and predicate, and capital Latin letters stand for the categorical propositions such as in the traditional notation: (i) in the second figure, Eba,Aba ` Eaa (Cesare), Aba, Eba ` Eaa (Camestres), Eba, I ba ` Oaa (Festino), and Aba,Oba ` Oaa (Baroco); (ii) in the third one, Eab,Aab ` Oaa (Felapton), Oab,Aab ` Oaa (Bocardo) and Eab, Iab ` Oaa (Ferison). Finally, we discuss the passage from the Analytica Posteriora (A11) in which Aristotle states that the Principle of Non-Contradiction is not generally presupposed in all demonstrations (scientific syllogisms), but only in those in which the conclusion must be proved from the Principle; the Stagerian states that if a syllogism of the first figure has the major term consistent, the other terms of the demonstration can be each one separately inconsistent. These results allow us to propose an interpretation of his deductive theory as a broad sense paraconsistent theory. Firstly, we proceed to a hermeneutical analysis, evaluating its logical significance and the interplay of the results with some other points of Aristotle’s philosophy. Secondly, we point to a logical interpretation of the Aristotelian syllogisms from opposite premises in the antilogisms method proposed by Christine Ladd-Franklin in 1883, and we also present a logical treatment of the Aristotelian demonstration with inconsistent material in the paraconsistent logics Cn, 1 _ n _!, introduced by da Costa in 1963. These two issues seem having not yet been analysed in detail in the literature. (shrink)

Cet article examine la définition, par Ramus, des normes de chaque science et l’influence de la critique de ce modèle ramiste dans l’émergence, au tournant du XVIIe siècle, d’une vision de la philosophie comme système de toutes les sciences. En étudiant la manière dont Bartholomäus Keckermann décrit les conditions qui permettent d’envisager la philosophie comme système des systèmes, on remarque la nette diffraction de l’héritage aristotélicien (principalement les Analytica posteriora) dans les thèses ramistes d’une part, dans l’approche systématique (...) de Keckermann par rapport aux disciplines philosophiques d’autre part. Cette différence a eu un fort impact sur les fonctions attribuées à la logique (Ramus) et à la métaphysique (Keckermann) dans l’architecture des savoirs. (shrink)

The notion of a μέσον, formally defined as the «middle term« in a syllogism, plays a pivotal role in Aristotle's theory of scientific demonstrations in his Analytica Posteriora. It is via the μέσον that the distinctive traits of a demonstration – the employment of causal notions and of statements concerning the essence of things – enter into demonstrative syllogisms. This, however, raises problems with respect to the provability of statements concerning the essence of things that Aristotle seems to (...) accept in certain passages of the Analytica Posteriora, as opposed to well-known passages in the Metaphysics. It is shown in which sense essences are in fact demonstrated by their being employed – via the μέσον – in a demonstration, without, however, being mentioned in the conclusion of such a demonstration. The importance Aristotle ascribes to the μέσον in Analytica Posteriora suggests a more flexible, less formalistic understanding of Aristotle's view of science, while still being based on an analysis of the formal structure of the syllogism. (shrink)

Aristoteles’ Theorie der Demonstration ist in seinen Analytica posteriora enthalten, einem Werk, das seine in den Analytica priora präsentierte Theorie des Syllogismus zur Voraussetzung hat und auf ihm aufbaut. Eine Demonstration ist ein spezieller Typ von Syllogismus, nämlich ein solcher, der beweist, dass eine Tatsache notwendig ist, indem er deren Ursache oder Erklärung aus bestimmten Prämissen aufzeigt, die ihrerseits bestimmte Bedingungen erfüllen müssen. Aristoteles’ Theorie der Demonstration ist eng mit seinem Begriff des wissenschaftlichen Wissens verknüpft, weil wissenschaftliches (...) Wissen seiner Auffassung nach durch Demonstration erlangt wird. Von daher steht die Demonstration im Mittelpunkt seiner Wissenschaftsphilosophie. Eine Wissenschaft stellt dabei eine bestimmte Abfolge von miteinander verbundenen Demonstrationen dar, die kausale Relationen unter den in ihren Bereich fallenden Tatsachen aufzeigt. (shrink)

vol. I. Logic: Categoriae. De interpretatione. Analytica priora. Analytica posteriora.--vol. II. Natural philosophy: Physica. De caelo. De generatione et corruptione.--vol. III. Psychology: De anima. Parva Naturalia.--vol. IV. Metaphysics: Metaphysica.--vol. V. Ethics: Ethica Nicomachea.--vol. VI. Politics and poetics: Politica. De poetica.

Die Quellen der Aristoteles-Rezeption bzw. der aristotelischen Logik im byzantinischen Mittelalter sind nur teilweise oder gering erforscht. Eine der wichtigen Autoritäten dieser Tradition stellt Leon Magentenos (12. Jh.?) dar. Magentenos war Metropolit von Mytilene sowie ein Gelehrter, der Kommentare zu allen sechs Traktaten des aristotelischen Organon (Categoriae, De Interpretatione, Analytica Priora, Analytica Posteriora, Topica, Sophistici Elenchi) verfasst hat. Hier wird die kritische Edition des Kommentars zum zweiten Buch der Ersten Analytik zusammen mit seiner Übersetzung ins Englische vorgelegt. (...) Untersucht werden auch die dem Kommentar angehängten syllogistischen Diagramme. Kommentare zu Analytica Priora II nach der Spätantike und vor Magentenos waren eher eine Rarität, daher ist sein Kommentar eine wichtige Quelle für alle Forscher, die sich mit der Geschichte der byzantinischen Logik und der aristotelischen Kommentierung befassen. (shrink)

Unter der Bezeichnung ›Organon‹ werden traditionell sechs Abhandlungen des Aristoteles zusammengefasst, die als sein logisches Werk gelten: Kategorien, De interpretatione, Analytica priora, Analytica posteriora, Topik, Sophistici elenchi. Die Zusammenfassung dieser Schriften zu einer Werkgruppe geht nicht auf Aristoteles zurück, sondern auf antike Kommentatoren und Editoren, vermutlich auf den Peripatetiker Andronikos von Rhodos im 1. Jh. v. Chr. Von einigen neuplatonischen und arabischen Kommentatoren wurden auch die Rhetorik und Poetik zum ›Organon‹ gezählt.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Notes and Discussions ARISTOTLE'S ALLEGED "REVOLT" AGAINST PLATO Hermippus' most conspicuous contribution to Aristotle's biography probably was his determined effort to depict Aristotle as the founder of an original school of philosophy which was wholly independent of Plato and Platonic teachings. Among the several and, in all likelihood, fanciful stories about Aristotle he invented or propagated, the most startling was the account, subsequently widely accepted (and widely exploited by (...) the detractors of Aristotle), that after having been a disciple of Plato for a while, he seceded from the Academy and from Plato's philosophic teachings while Plato was still alive. 1 Accordingly, he owed little to Plato and to the Academy. This story, invented and propagated by an inveterate Peripatetic (Hermippus), was intended to demonstrate the original philosophic genius of Aristotle which developed in complete independence of Plato and necessitated a break with the master's teachings. In devising his argument, Hermippus might have made use of a report, found in some of Aristotle's ancient biographers, that a few brash young men (members of the Academy?) revolted against Plato and, in a spirit of independence, defiance and antagonism, attempted to start a school of their own which would rival the intellectual standing of the Academy. 2 Hermippus, it appears, subsequently identified these young "rebels" with Aristotle, a substitution convenient to Hermippus" aim to depict Aristotle as a wholly independent and totally original philosopher who owed nothing whatever to Plato and his teachings. In all likelihood, Diogenes Laertius' statement that Aristotle "seceded from the Academy while Plato was still alive," a is just an echo either of a statement made by Hermippus himself or is a conclusion drawn from the several unpleasant stories about Aristotle invented and reported by some of Aristotle's detractors. According to these derogatory stories, there existed many serious personal as well as doctrinal 4 disagreements or rifts between Plato and the Stagirite--disagreeDiogenes Laertius, V. 2. See also Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, XV. 2. 3, and ibid., XV. 2. 13 (Aristoxenus); Aelian, Varia Historia, IV. 9; Theodoretus, Graecorum Affectionum Curatio, IV. 46; St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, VIII. 12; Philoponus, Comment. in Aristotelis Analytica Posteriora, CIAG, vol. XIII, part 3, pp. 133, 30 ft. 2 See Aelius Aristides, Oratio XLVI, 249. 10. See also note 1, supra. s Diogenes Laertius, V. 2. See also Vita Aristotelis Marciana 9; Vita Aristotelis Latina 9. 9 See, for instance, Plutarch, Adversus Coloten 14 (Moralia, III5A); Cicero, Academica I. 9. 33; Eusebius, op. cir., XV. 2, passim; Diogenes Laertius III. 37; Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Graecos 5 (Migne, PG. vol. VI. p. 247); Cyrillus, Contra Julianum II. 47; Proclus, [91] 92 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY ments whichmarred the relations between these two men and which were indicative of Aristotle's ingratitude, bad taste and unwarranted conceit. The report of Diogenes Laertius, in an oblique manner, may also refer to the fact that already during his active association with the Platonic Academy (367-348 B.c.), that is, in his On (the) Ideas and On the Good, Aristotle had begun to disagree with, and criticize, some of Plato's fundamental teachings. It may also, in a distorted form, refer to the following specific incident which, however, cannot be verified: According to Aristoxenus, during the absence of Plato in Syracuse (and while Heracleides of Pontus was the "acting scholarch" of the Academy),5 some unnamed young members of the Academy, or "students" or, perhaps, some "outsiders " attempted to start a rival school (within the Academy?).6 As a matter of fact, Aelian, who apparently dramatizes this incident, reports that during Plato's last years, that is, some time after Plato's return from his third and last voyage to Syracuse, a serious conflict or confrontation arose within the Academy. Aristotle, together with some of his friends, or "conspirators," we are told, harrassed and molested the aging Plato by constantly putting questions to him, by arguing with him in an insolent manner, by contradicting him on every point, and by attempting to involve him in hair-splitting dialectics. At the time Xenocrates was in Chalcedon, and Speusippus was gravely ill. Hence, neither of them could come to the succor of Plato. In... (shrink)

The intoduccion of the Aristotelian Analytica Posteriora in the Middle Ages and their diffusion all through 13th century caused significant changes in the conception of the scientific knowledges, including those of the Theology.This one was clearly distinguished from the Philosophy. In this work I show Grosseteste’s main theological ideas and the lineaments of its epistemological justification: the object and the method of the Theology.

IN THE first chapter of the second book of the Analytica Posteriora Aristotle offers a fourfold classification of objects of inquiry He refers to each of them by means of a shorthand expression.

No Órganon Aristóteles descreve alguns esquemas dedutivos nos quais a presença de inconsistências não acarreta a trivialização da teoria lógica envolvida. Esta tese é corroborada por três diferentes situações teóricas estudadas por ele, as quais são apresentadas neste trabalho. Analizamos o esquema de inferência utilizado por Aristóteles no Protrepticus e o método de demonstração indireta para os silogismos categóricos. Ambos os métodos exemplificam como Aristóteles emprega estratégias de redução ao absurdo logicamente clássicas. Na sequência, discutimos os silogismos válidos a partir (...) de premissas opostas (contrárias e contraditórias) estudadas pelo Estagirita no Analytica Priora (B15). De acordo com o autor, os seguintes silogismos são válidos a partir de premissas opostas, nos quais letras latinas minúsculas denotam termos como sujeito e predicado, enquanto que letras latinas maiúsculas denotam proposições categóricas tal como na notação tradicional: (i) na segunda figura, Eba,Aba ` Eaa (Cesare), Aba, Eba ` Eaa (Camestres), Eba, I ba ` Oaa (Festino), e Aba,Oba ` Oaa (Baroco); (ii) na terceira, Eab,Aab ` Oaa (Felapton), Oab,Aab ` Oaa (Bocardo) e Eab, Iab ` Oaa (Ferison). Por fim, discutimos a passagem do Analytica Posteriora (A11) no qual Aristóteles enuncia que o Princípio de Não-Contradição não é, em geral, pressuposto de toda demonstração (silogismo científico), mas apenas daquelas nas quais a conclusão deve ser provada a partir do Princípio; o Estagirita enuncia que se um silogismo da primeira figura tiver o termo maior consistente, os outros termos da demonstração podem ser separadamente inconsistentes. Estes resultados permitem-nos propor uma interpretação de sua teoria dedutiva como uma teoria paraconsistente lato sensu. Primeiramente, efetuamos uma análise hermenêutica, avaliando seu significado lógico e a correlação desses resultados com outros aspectos da filosofia de Aristóteles. Em segundo lugar, consignamos uma interpretação dos silogismos aristotélicos a partir de premissas opostas à luz dos antilogismos propostos por Christine Ladd-Franklin em 1883, e da demonstração aristotélica com termos inconsistentes nas lógicas paraconsistentes Cn, 1 n !, introduzidas por da Costa em 1963. Esses dois aspectos não parecem ter sido ainda detalhadamente analisados na literatura. DOI:10.5007/1808-1711.2010v14n1p71. (shrink)

The Greek under the Latin and the Latin under the Greek -- Greek-Latin philosophical interaction -- The odyssey of semantics from the Stoa to Buridan -- The Chimera's diary -- Where were the stoics in the late Middle Ages? -- Theories of language in the Hellenistic age and in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries -- Late-ancient ancestors of medieval philosophical commentaries -- Boethius on Aristotle -- Boethius on the metaphysics of words -- Western and Byzantine approaches to logic -- Greek (...) and Latin medieval logic -- Philoponus, Alexander, and the origins of medieval logic -- Analyzing syllogisms or anonymus Aurelianensis III, the (presumably) earliest extant Latin commentary on the prior analytics, and its Greek model -- Fragments of Alexander's commentaries on Analytica posteriora and Sophistici elenchi. (shrink)

As Paul Feyerabend once remarked, philosophy of science is a subject with a great past. Let me for the moment leave aside his disillusioned impression that it had only a sad present and no future and concentrate on its past. It is surprising indeed that much has been published on the history of science in the last few decades, while only very few efforts have been made to give an overall description of the history of philosophy of science. That of (...) course presupposes a defi nition or at least a rough idea of the subject. And along with that goes an answer to the question when it started and what has been part of it during its development. Some seem to think that philosophy of science already began with Aristotle’s Analytica Posteriora, while others would be inclined to have it start more than 2000 years later, let’s say with the Vienna Circle. (shrink)

The meaning of the term “analysis” in Leibniz’s work is multifarious and it is doubtful that one could ever succeed in gathering this variety of meanings into a unified whole. However it has long been remarked that a landmass seems to detach itself from these moving waters – an island sometimes called by its inventor “The Most General Analytics of Human Thoughts”. Already sketched in the De Arte Combinatoria (1666) as a reform of the “analytical part” of Logic (pars logices (...) analytica), it rested on a very simple intuition: the possibility of developing, in parallel, three analyses, namely an analysis of thoughts (analysis notionum et veritatum), an analysis of the structure of language by which we express these thoughts (analysis linguarum or analysis grammatica) and an analysis of the symbols by which we represent them (analysis characterum). This “General Analytics” achieved, any human thought could be related to a catalog of simple notions expressed by basic characters (the so called alphabetum cogitationum humanarum) and, as a direct consequence, any truth could be expressed as a combination of these primitive symbols. (shrink)

The Cambridge Analytica–Facebook scandal led to widespread concern over the methods deployed by Cambridge Analytica to target voters through psychographic profiling algorithms, built upon Facebook user data. The scandal ultimately led to a record-breaking $5 billion penalty imposed upon Facebook by the Federal Trade Commission in July 2019. The FTC action, however, has been criticized as failing to adequately address the privacy and other harms emanating from Facebook’s release of approximately 87 million Facebook users’ data, which was exploited (...) without user authorization. This Essay summarizes the FTC’s response to the Cambridge Analytica–Facebook scandal. It concludes that the scandal focuses attention on the need to explore the potential for embedding due process-type inquiries and protections within the enforcement actions by regulatory agencies such as the FTC. These protections are increasingly important in addressing the problem of “black boxing the voter” that is now presented by data- and algorithmic-driven companies such as Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. (shrink)

There is a consensus that post-war British analytic philosophy was politically neutral. This view has been affirmed by the post-war analysts themselves, and by their critics. This paper argues that this consensus-view is false. Many central analytic philosophers claimed that their empirical philosophy had liberal outcomes, either through cultivating liberal habits of mind, or by revealing truths about the world that supported liberal conclusions. These beliefs were not subject to significant scrutiny or attempts at justification, but they do help us (...) to explain the otherwise puzzling disinclination to engage with questions of political philosophy on the part of these politically active individuals. (shrink)