Around the turn of the 20th century, Keynes and Johnson extended the well-known square of opposition to an octagon of opposition, in order to account for subject negation (e.g., statements like ‘all non-S are P’). The main goal of this paper is to study the logical properties of the Keynes-Johnson (KJ) octagons of opposition. In particular, we will discuss three concrete examples of KJ octagons: the original one for subject-negation, a contemporary one from knowledge representation, and a third one (hitherto (...) not yet studied) from deontic logic. We show that these three KJ octagons are all Aristotelian isomorphic, but not all Boolean isomorphic to each other (the first two are representable by bitstrings of length 7, whereas the third one is representable by bitstrings of length 6). These results nicely fit within our ongoing research efforts toward setting up a systematic classification of squares, octagons, and other diagrams of opposition. Finally, obtaining a better theoretical understanding of the KJ octagons allows us to answer some open questions that have arisen in recent applications of these diagrams. (shrink)

The objects called cubes of opposition have been presented in the literature in discordant ways. The aim of the paper is to offer a survey of such various kinds of cubes and evaluate their relation with an object, here called “Aristotelian cube”, which consists of two Aristotelian squares and four squares which are semiaristotelian, i.e. are such that their vertices are linked by some so-called Aristotelian relation. Two paradigm cases of Aristotelian squares are provided by propositions written in the language (...) of the logic of consequential implication, whose distinctive feature is the validity of two formulas, A $$\rightarrow $$ → B $$\supset \lnot $$ ⊃ ¬ (A $$\rightarrow $$ → $$\lnot $$ ¬ B) and A $$\rightarrow $$ → B $$\supset \lnot $$ ⊃ ¬ ($$\lnot $$ ¬ A $$\rightarrow $$ → B), expressing two different forms of contrariety. Part of section 1 is devoted to define the notions of rotation and of r-Aristotelian square, i.e. a square resulting from some rotation of an Aristotelian square. In section 2 this notion is extended to the one of a r-Aristotelian cube, i.e. of a cube resulting from some rotation of some square of an Aristotelian cube. This notion is used in the sequel to analyze various cubes of oppositions which can be found in the literature: (1) the one used by W. Lenzen to reconstruct Caramuel’s Octagon; (2) the one used by D. Luzeaux to represent the implicative relation among S5-modalities; (3) the one introduced by D. Dubois to represent the relations between quantified propositions containing positive predicates and their negations; (4) the one called Moretti cube. None of such cubes is strictly speaking Aristotelian but each of them may be proved to be r-Aristotelian. Section 5 discusses the assertion that Dubois cube was anticipated in a paper published by Reichenbach in 1952. Actually Dubois’ construction was anticipated by the so-called Johnson–Keynes cube, while the Reichenbach cube, unlike Dubois cube, is an instance of an Aristotelian cube in the sense defined in this paper. The dominance of such notion is confirmed by J.F. Nilsson’s cube, representing relations between propositions with nested quantifiers, and also by a cube introduced by S. Read to treat quantifiers with existential import. A cube similar to Read’s cube, introduced by Chatti and Schang, is shown to be r-Aristotelian. In section 6 the author remarks that the logic of the formulas occurring in the cubes of Chatti–Schang and Read have the drawback of not satsfying the law of Identity. He then proposes a definition of non-standard quantifiers which satisfies Identity, are independent of existential assumptions and such that their interrelations are represented by an Aristotelian cube. (shrink)

This discussion explores the possibility of distinguishing a tighter notion of contrariety evident in the Square of Opposition, especially in its modal incarnations, than as that binary relation holding statements that cannot both be true, with or without the added rider ‘though can both be false’. More than one theorist has voiced the intuition that the paradigmatic contraries of the traditional Square are related in some such tighter way—involving the specific role played by negation in contrasting them—that distinguishes them from (...) other pairs of incompatible statements constructed from the same conceptual materials. Prominent among examples, these other nonstandard pairs are the ‘new contraries’ presented by Robert Blanché’s hexagon(s) of opposition. With special, though not exclusive, attention to these cases, we investigate whether contrariety in the distinguished sense can be captured by adding to the incompatibility condition the further demand that the pair of statements concerned can be represented as the results of applying some sentence operator to the content in its scope, for one of the pair, and, for the other, the application of that same operator to the negation of that content. For one of the two cases, a Blanché case, of nonstandard contrariety singled out for attention, the question of whether such a representation is available is settled at the end of Section 4, and then in a more satisfying way in Section 5, though for the other case, noticed by Peter Simons, the question remains open, after some tentative discussion in one subsection, 6.2, of an Appendix (Section 6). (shrink)

This paper explores the interplay between logic-sensitivity and bitstring semantics in the square of opposition. Bitstring semantics is a combinatorial technique for representing the formulas that appear in a logical diagram, while logic-sensitivity entails that such a diagram may depend, not only on the formulas involved, but also on the logic with respect to which they are interpreted. These two topics have already been studied extensively in logical geometry, and are thus well-understood by themselves. However, the precise details of their (...) interplay turn out to be far more complicated. In particular, the paper describes an elegant and natural interaction between bitstrings and logic-sensitivity, which makes perfect sense when bitstrings are viewed as purely combinatorial entities. However, when we view bitstrings as semantically meaningful entities (which is actually the standard perspective, cf. the term ‘bitstring semantics’!), this interaction does not seem to have a full and equally natural counterpart. The paper describes some attempts to address this situation, but all of them are ultimately found wanting. For now, it thus remains an open problem to capture this interaction between bitstrings and logic-sensitivity from a semantic (rather than merely a combinatorial) perspective. (shrink)

In the recent debate on future contingents and the nature of the future, authors such as G. A. Boyd, W. L. Craig, and E. Hess have made use of various logical notions, such as the Aristotelian relations of contradiction and contrariety, and the ‘open future square of opposition.’ My aim in this paper is not to enter into this philosophical debate itself, but rather to highlight, at a more abstract methodological level, the important role that Aristotelian diagrams can play in (...) organizing and clarifying the debate. After providing a brief survey of the specific ways in which Boyd and Hess make use of Aristotelian relations and diagrams in the debate on the nature of the future, I argue that the position of open theism is best represented by means of a hexagon of opposition. Next, I show that on the classical theist account, this hexagon of opposition ‘collapses’ into a single pair of contradictory statements. This collapse from a hexagon into a pair has several aspects, which can all be seen as different manifestations of a single underlying change. (shrink)

After explaining the interdisciplinary aspect of the series of events organized around the square of opposition since 2007, we discuss papers related to the 4th World Congress on the Square of Opposition which was organized in the Vatican at the Pontifical Lateran University in 2014. We distinguish three categories of work: those dealing with the evolution and development of the theory of opposition, those using the square as a metalogical tool to give a better understanding of various systems of logic (...) and those related with applications of the theory of opposition to conceptual analysis and pedagogy. (shrink)