Warum fehlt bei Aristoteles die 4. Figur?

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
The reason for Aristotle’s treatment of (traditional) fourth figure syllogisms as first figure syllogisms with inverted terms in the conclusion is the following: To disprove the conclusiveness of a premiss pair Aristotle formulates two triplets of true propositions such that two of them correspond to the premiss pair in question and that the third proposition corresponding to a conclusion is an a-proposition in the first case, an e-proposition in the other. Since the truth of an a-proposition grants the falsity of the contrary e- and of the contradictory o-proposition, the first triplet offers two counter-instances for invalid syllogisms with true premisses and false conclusions. Similarly the true e-proposition grants the falsity of an a- and an i-conclusion. Since an a-proposition can be converted to an i-proposition and an e-proposition is equivalent to its converse, these first figure triplets also disprove any first figure syllogism with converted conclusions, with the exception of o-conclusions. The invalidity of the latter ones, however, can be shown by using premiss conversions of (invalid) second and third figure syllogisms. The proposed explanation also makes clear why there are no rejection proofs for invalid syllogisms of (traditional) fourth figure syllogisms in the Analytics.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-04-14
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Was Ist Ein Vollkommener Syllogismus des Aristoteles?Theodor Ebert - 1995 - Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 77 (3):221-247.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
369 ( #11,037 of 47,280 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
85 ( #7,440 of 47,280 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.