Peirce conceived of methodology, or methodeutic, as he preferred to call it, as one of the three major parts of logic taken broadly--the other two being the theory of signs and formal logic. Unlike these two, however, his theory of methodology remained mostly programmatic, and there is little more than fragmentary suggestions about it scattered through his writings. But by gathering them together and pursuing their insights, it is possible to indicate how he might have divided and developed it: 1) (...) The nature of scientific discourse and how it differs from non-scientific. 2) The logic of inquiry, both heuristic and systematic, according to the modes of argument as deductive, inductive, or abductive (i.e. hypothesis) or a combination or all three. 3) The assurance of science considered in the factors that thwart or promote inquiry. (shrink)

Dialectic, as one of the methods of philosophy, is characterized by being prepositional, interrogative, controversial, and interminable. These notes suffice to distinguish dialectic from science, sophistic, rhetoric, and, generally, from intuitive and demonstrative knowledge. Each note also determines a function which dialectic fulfills in philosophical inquiry. The interrogative function is best seen in the consideration of principles and the formulation of problems. As prepositional and controversial, philosophy depends upon the history of philosophy and is engaged in a continuous controversy which, (...) as interminable, is capable of progress as dialectic ensures and promotes a community of understanding. (shrink)

Dialectic, as one of the methods of philosophy, is characterized by being prepositional, interrogative, controversial, and interminable. These notes suffice to distinguish dialectic from science, sophistic, rhetoric, and, generally, from intuitive and demonstrative knowledge. Each note also determines a function which dialectic fulfills in philosophical inquiry. The interrogative function is best seen in the consideration of principles and the formulation of problems. As prepositional and controversial, philosophy depends upon the history of philosophy and is engaged in a continuous controversy which, (...) as interminable, is capable of progress as dialectic ensures and promotes a community of understanding. (shrink)

This volume in the series ORBIS ACADEMICUS: Problemgeschicten der Wissenschaft in Dokumenten und Darstellungen, marks the first attempt to give a comprehensive history of logic since the monumental work of Prantl. In sharp contrast with that work, it does not share the opinion, voiced by Kant, that logic has no history after Aristotle; it uses the results of very extensive research into the history of ancient and scholastic logic, especially during the last 25 years; most important of all, it is (...) written with full knowledge of modern mathematical logic which was only beginning in Prantl’s time, and finally it also includes an account of Hindu logic. (shrink)

The three books presented in this volume, _Integral Humanism_, _Freedom in the Modern World_, and _A Letter on Independence_, were all written in the early 1930s, a time of dire trouble for France. France was then surrounded by enemies preparing for war and was itself so violently split between parties of Left and Right that it seemed on the verge of Civil War. In this collection, Jacques Maritain accepts the responsibility of a Christian philosopher to actively address the agonizing practical (...) problems of the time. Maritain discusses major political issues such as the relation of freedom and religion, the opposition of democracy to any form of totalitarianism, the relation of the spiritual and the temporal, the need for an integral and Christian humanism, and the prospects for a new Christian civilization, all in opposition to the materialism of both communism and capitalism. Against the fierce antagonism of the parties of the political Left and Right, Maritain declares a plague on both their houses and strongly affirms the need for independence from both of them. He does so by distinguishing between two senses of the terms Left and Right, one denoting a temperamental or physiological disposition, the other a definite political position. In the latter sense, Maritain asserts that he is an independent, while acknowledging that he is, by temperament, a man of the Left. (shrink)

From the start the better logicians found much to take exception to in Prantl. Peirce, for example, describes him as "a writer of little judgment and over-rated learning, whose useful history of logic is full of blunders, misappreciations, and insensate theories, and whose own Billingsgate justifies almost any tone toward him". As is indicated in this comment, Prantl attempted to judge and assess the value of the logical achievements that he made the object of his study. However, he himself had (...) little logical acumen. If not justified, this is to some extent excused by Heinrich Scholz, the first comprehensive historian of logic after Prantl. In his Abriß der Geschichte der Logik, which first appeared in 1931 and has now been translated, he maintains that no trustworthy conception of the history of logic was possible until modern and mathematical logic provided a precise criterion for formal logic. In particular he maintains that logic in the course of its history has assumed different Gestalten, which must be distinguished if sense is to be made of it. He is especially concerned to distinguish formal logic, whether in its ancient Aristotelian or its modern mathematical Gestalt, from its non-formal extensions into psychology, epistemology, and metaphysics. It is certainly true that the rise of mathematical logic has also witnessed a renewed interest in the history of logic. Scholars using the means provided by modern analysis have found much in the past of great logical interest, which had previously been dismissed as worthless extravagance. The logic of the Stoics and of the 14th-century scholastics are prime examples. (shrink)

The nature and value of what might be called formalism constitutes one of the recurrent themes in the history of logic. In each of the great ages of logic much the same pattern of events occurs. There is a period of discovery and development during which the formal element in logical relations is isolated and analysed for itself, and a science of logic is established. Although there may be doubt about the fringes of the subject, logicians at least are then (...) fairly well agreed on what constitutes formal logic. Someone next arises who compares this science of logic with the use of argument in every–day life and, finding it of little relevance, protests against what he considers its vain and useless formalism. Such in substance is the attitude of Cicero towards the ancient formal logic of Aristotle and the Stoics, and of the literary humanists of the Renaissance towards the logic of the late Middle Ages. Such, in brief, is the position of Prof. Toulmin towards the mathematical form of modern logic. (shrink)

This is the best study available of Aristotle’s syllogistic. It combines the insights that have been gained into logical form through the development of modern logic with the traditional philological and philosophical understanding of the Aristotelian text. Such a work has been badly needed since Lukasiewicz first offered his revolutionary interpretation of Aristotle’s syllogistic as a formal system meeting the most rigorous demands of modern logic. Lukasiewicz did little to show how his interpretation could be based on the text of (...) Aristotle, and the question remained whether the result was not rather more Lukasiewicz than Aristotle. Dr Patzig has now offered the detailed textual analysis needed to prove the point and, in doing so, has in many cases corrected and improved upon Lukasiewicz. (shrink)

This is the best study available of Aristotle’s syllogistic. It combines the insights that have been gained into logical form through the development of modern logic with the traditional philological and philosophical understanding of the Aristotelian text. Such a work has been badly needed since Lukasiewicz first offered his revolutionary interpretation of Aristotle’s syllogistic as a formal system meeting the most rigorous demands of modern logic. Lukasiewicz did little to show how his interpretation could be based on the text of (...) Aristotle, and the question remained whether the result was not rather more Lukasiewicz than Aristotle. Dr Patzig has now offered the detailed textual analysis needed to prove the point and, in doing so, has in many cases corrected and improved upon Lukasiewicz. (shrink)