Ancient logic and its modern interpretations corcoran j
Rating:
5,5/10
1411
reviews

Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 10 2004 276-277. Indeed, we are recognizing more and more that part of the history of modern logic is to have re-invented the wheel that Aristotle turned many years ago. Again, if M belongs to all N and to no X, X will belong to no N. But Peter was active in a number of other areas as well. Aristotles Doctrine of the Material Substrate. Mugler, Dictionnaire Historique de la terminologie geomitrique des grecs, Paris 1958.

The upshot is that Corcoran succeeds, as Lukasiewicz did, in reproducing Aristotle's results, and he succeeds, as Lukasiewicz did not, in reproducing Aristotle's method step by step, so that the annotated deductions of his system D are faithful translations of Aristotle's exposition. Aristotelian Interpretations considers themes of perennial interest, offering new avenues of interpretation, illustrating how Aristotle's thought may be creatively applied to a variety of timeless and contemporary questions. In the case of a direct deduction the 'space' between the premises and conclusion is filled up in accordance with the given rules. But he explains this implication as if it were a «formal implication» in the sense defined by Russell. Lukasiewicz is claiming that thi s is what Aristotle did.

In this passage the sentences 'No knowledge is knowledge' and 'Some knowledge is not knowledge' appear as conclusions of syllogisms with contradictory premises and there are ample grounds for urging the extrasystematic character of the examples. Be sure to check the listings for related topics. Did Aristotle have the Concept of Identity? This extra-logical consideration was evidently thought to militate against the validity ofthe argument, an argument which passes the conditionalization test whether the conditional invoIved be regarded as PhiIonian, Diodorean, or Chrysippean true. The textual situation is the folIowing : In the whole of the passages which contain the 'second logic' there is no appearance of self-predication. I assume that the Stoics had some such principle of the interdefinabiIity of connectives Bochenski, p. Mario Bunge, Reidel Publishing Co.

The results of his study, particularly in Prior Analytics A4-7, serve as elements in his deduction system. It is also relevant to point out that the existence of this metaproof provides a negative answer to a question raised by William Parry concerning the nature of indirect deductions in Aristotle. Lukasiewicz 1958 , for example, believes that he helps to illuminate Aristotles own axiomatization of the syllogistic, and J. The Four Causes in Aristotles Embryology. Such historians of logic include Frede 1974, p.

I think there can be no doubt that he is correct. I am also enormously indebted to John Corcoran for many incisive remarks and helpful suggestions on two later versions of the paper. Throughout the Winter and Spring semesters of 1971-72, I consulted extensively with John Mulhern and Mary Mulhern. Grasping him to be concerned with the deduction process helps us to avoid such an error. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 4 1998 220-221.

Apeiron 22 1989 91-104. However, the only way of determining that a premise set is inconsistent is by dedueing contradictory conc1usions from it. In this connection, Aristotle obtained metamathematical results using methods which are clearly accounted for by the present interpretation but which must remain a mystery on the Lukasiewicz interpretation. The Philosophic Background of Aristotles Aitia. in Ancient Minds, J. Sxy According to Oliver's usage these two arguments are in the same form and yet the one on the left is obviously invalid suppose x indicates 'men' and y 'horses' while the one on the right is obviously valid in faet the conclusion follows immediately from the second premise. Second, to establish the invalidity of all arguments in the same form as a given argument, he produces a specific argument in the required form for which the intended interpetation is a counter interpretation.

Senta Plötz, Athenäum Verlag, Frankfurt, 1972 , 275-292. Bertrand Russell once said that Mill's misfortune was to be born at the wrong time Russell 1951 , p. Nothing of this sort has been attempted in previous interpretations ef. Aristotles Categories, Chapters I-V: Translation and Notes. Mind 101 1992 35-57. A New Reading of Aristotles Hylê. I want first to consider Sextus' ascription to the Stoics of the view that a sufficient condition for the validity of an argument is the truth of its corresponding conditional henceforth 'the conditionalization test'.

Secondly, this system loosens to some extent the constraint of not being able to use indirectly obtained results in deductions in D. It is simply a reflection of two facts: fint, that within the passages treating the second logic Aristotle did not consider the possibility of 'logical truths' object language sentences true in virtue of logic alone ; second, and more importantly, that Aristotle regarded logic as a 'canon of inference' rather than as a codification of 'the most generallaws of nature'. First, it would define a new deductive system which had the syllogisms in all three figures as rules. Augustus De Morgan 1806-1871 was a British mathematician and logician who was Professor of Mathematics at the University of London now, University College from 1828 to 1866. George Boole's The Laws of Thought. Phronesis 10 1965 97-105.

He has referred to the mathematical dimension of his approach to history as mathematical archaeology. Please click button to get ancient logic and its modern interpretations book now. The non-intended interpretations of a language are structures which share all 'purely logical' features with the intended interpretation. Proper Sensibles and Kath' Auta Causes. Ethnomethodological Foundations of Mathematics 1986 , in Mathematical Reviews 1988 88b:00021. Ancient Logic and Its Modern Interpretation, ed.