Notes on recent books about Aristotle, including Jonathan Barnes, Truth etc.

The present book is the English version of a monograph 'Die aristotelische Syllogistik', which first appeared ten years ago in the series of Abhand 1 lungen edited by the Academy of Sciences in Gottingen. In the preface to the English edition, I would first like to express my indebtedness to Mr. J. Barnes, now fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. He not only translated what must have been a difficult text with exemplary precision and ingenuity, but followed critically every argument and (...) check ed every reference. While translating it, he has improved the book. Of those changes which I have made on Mr. Barnes' suggestion I note only the more important ones on pages 4, 12, 24sq, 32, 39, 6lsq, and 158. Since the second edition of the German text appeared in 1963 some further reviews have been published, or come to my notice, which I have 2 been able to make use of in improving the text of this new edition. I must mention here especially the detailed critical discussions of my results and arguments published by Professor W. Wieland in the Philosophische Rundschau 14 (1966), 1-27 and by Professor E. Scheibe in Gnomon 39 (1967), 454-64. Both scholars, while agreeing with the main drift and method of my interpretation, criticise some of my results and disagree with some of my arguments. It would not be possible to discuss these technical matters here with the necessary thoroughness. (shrink)

La définition du sullogismos est strictement identique dans les Topiques et dans les Premiers Analytiques, alors qu'on admet généralement que, dans ce dernier traité, le terme désigne spécifiquement la structure formelle appelée aujourd'hui encore « syllogisme » . Le mot peut avoir le même sens d'un bout à l'autre de l'Organon et du corpus aristotélicien : il désigne le moment de la joute dialectique où l'interrogateur récapitule une section de la discussion et se montre en mesure d'imposer une conclusion à (...) laquelle son interlocuteur ne peut pas se dérober. À la suite de Hintikka (1993), on suggère que cette notion est issue des dialogues de Platon. C'est à partir de cette conception dialectique originelle que la théorie aristotélicienne de la rhétorique, d'une part, et la « syllogistique » formelle, de l'autre, ont pu se développer. The definition of a sullogismos in Aristotle's Topics and Prior Analytics is strictly identical, although it is generally admitted that in the latter treatise this word refers to the distinct deductive structure that we call "syllogism". This paper aims at showing that the word sullogismos may be given the same meaning throughout the Organon and throughout the Aristotelian corpus and that it refers to a characteristic move in the course of a dialectical debate, i.e. when the questioner, summing up a whole sequence of the previous discussion, shows that he is in a position to force upon his interlocutor a conclusion which the latter cannot escape. Following a suggestion made by Hintikka (1993), this paper shows that the notion most probably originates from Plato's dialogues, and uses it as a leading thread to show how the Aristotelian concept of rhetoric, on the one hand, and Aristotle's formal "syllogistic", on the other, may have grown out of this original dialectical core. (shrink)

In previous articles, it has been shown that the deductive system developed by Aristotle in his "second logic" is a natural deduction system and not an axiomatic system as previously had been thought. It was also stated that Aristotle's logic is self-sufficient in two senses: First, that it presupposed no other logical concepts, not even those of propositional logic; second, that it is (strongly) complete in the sense that every valid argument expressible in the language of the system is deducible (...) by means of a formal deduction in the system. Review of the system makes the first point obvious. The purpose of the present article is to prove the second. Strong completeness is demonstrated for the Aristotelian system. (shrink)

Aristotle was the founder not only of logic but also of modal logic. In the Prior Analytics he developed a complex system of modal syllogistic which, while influential, has been disputed since antiquity--and is today widely regarded as incoherent. Combining analytic rigor with keen sensitivity to historical context, Marko Malink makes clear that the modal syllogistic forms a consistent, integrated system of logic, one that is closely related to other areas of Aristotle's philosophy. Aristotle's modal syllogistic differs significantly from modern (...) modal logic. Malink considers the key to understanding the Aristotelian version to be the notion of predication discussed in the Topics--specifically, its theory of predicables and the ten categories. The predicables introduce a distinction between essential and nonessential predication. In contrast, the categories distinguish between substantial and nonsubstantial predication. Malink builds on these insights in developing a semantics for Aristotle's modal propositions, one that verifies the ancient philosopher's claims of the validity and invalidity of modal inferences. While it acknowledges some limitations of this reconstruction, Aristotle's Modal Syllogistic brims with bold ideas, richly supported by close readings of the Greek texts. (shrink)

This is a German translation with commentary of Aristotle’s Prior Analytics, Book I. The introduction (‚Einleitung‘, pp. 97–182) contains a concise history of the reception of Aristotle’s syllogistic from Theophrastus to Kant and Hegel. The commentary places special attention to the modal chapters (i. e. I 3 and 8–22). Aristotle’s modal syllogistic is treated with more sympathy than in other modern commentaries and discussions of this part of Aristotle’s logic.

Terence Parsons presents a new study of the development and continuing value of medieval logic, which expanded Aristotle's basic principles of logic in important ways. Parsons argues that the resulting system is as rich as contemporary first-order symbolic logic.

I consider the proper interpretation of the process of ecthesis which Aristotle uses several times in the Prior analytics for completing a syllogistic mood, i.e., showing how to produce a deduction of a conclusion of a certain form from premisses of certain forms. I consider two interpretations of the process which have been advocated by recent scholars and show that one seems better suited to most passages while the other best fits a single remaining passage. I also argue that ecthesis (...) for Aristotle really means ?setting out? the case to be proved using letters. Aristotle?s remarks about the use of letters in mathematical proofs suggest that he had some understanding of rules equivalent to universal generalization and existential instantiation; the ?proofs through ecthesis? are so called because they rest on the latter rule, with which use of letters is involved in a special way. (shrink)

This monograph proposes a new way of implementing interaction in logic. It also provides an elementary introduction to Constructive Type Theory. The authors equally emphasize basic ideas and finer technical details. In addition, many worked out exercises and examples will help readers to better understand the concepts under discussion. One of the chief ideas animating this study is that the dialogical understanding of definitional equality and its execution provide both a simple and a direct way of implementing the CTT approach (...) within a game-theoretical conception of meaning. In addition, the importance of the play level over the strategy level is stressed, binding together the matter of execution with that of equality and the finitary perspective on games constituting meaning. According to this perspective the emergence of concepts are not only games of giving and asking for reasons, they are also games that include moves establishing how it is that the reasons brought forward accomplish their explicative task. Thus, immanent reasoning games are dialogical games of Why and How. (shrink)

Prolegomena It is fitting to begin this book on intuitionistic type theory by putting the subject matter into perspective. The purpose of this chapter is to ...

Inference versus consequence , an invited lecture at the LOGICA 1997 conference at Castle Liblice, was part of a series of articles for which I did research during a Stockholm sabbatical in the autumn of 1995. The article seems to have been fairly effective in getting its point across and addresses a topic highly germane to the Uppsala workshop. Owing to its appearance in the LOGICA Yearbook 1997 , Filosofia Publishers, Prague, 1998, it has been rather inaccessible. Accordingly it is (...) republished here with only bibliographical changes and an afterword. (shrink)

I LOGIC IN PHILOSOPHY— PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC i. On the relation of logic to philosophy I n this book, the consequences of certain logical insights for ...

in die operative Logik und Mathematik Zweite Auflage Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York 1969 Paul Lorenzen o. Prof. der Philosophie an der Universitat Erlangen Geschaftsfilhrende Herausgeber: Prof. Dr. B. Eckmann Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich Prof. Dr. B. L. van cler Waerclen Mathematisches Institut der Universitat ZUrich ISBN 978-3-642-86519-0 ISBN 978-3-642-86518-3 (eBook) DOl 10.1007/978-3-642-86518-3 Aile Rechte vorbehalten. Kein Teil dieses Buches darf ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Springer-Verlages ubersetzt oder in irgendeiner Form vervielfaltigt werden © by Springer-Verlag Berlin· Heidelberg 1955 und 1969 (...) Softcover reprint of the hardcover 2nd edition 1969 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 73-76724 Titel-Nr. 5061 Vorwort zur zweiten Auflage. Fiir die Neuauflage ist der Text nur unwesentlich geandert worden. Es ist - neben der Korrektur einiger Ungenauigkeiten - vor allem die Terminologie und Symbolik an meine spateren Arbeiten angeglichen. Obwohl ich - verstandlicherweise - jetzt die Ansatze der spateren Arbeiten fiir "sachgemaBer" halte, z. B. eine Logik der Dialoge statt einer Logik der Kalkiile, die Verwendung indefiniter Quantoren statt einer expliziten Konstruktion von Sprachschichten, enthalt diese Neu­ auflage den Inhalt der 1. Auflage unverandert. Der Leser kann also einen Vergleich mit meinen spateren Arbeiten (vgl. Literaturverzeichnis) seIber durchfiihren. Mein Dank gilt wiederum dem Verlag fiir seine entgegenkommende Mitarbeit bei der Vorbereitung dieser Neuauflage. Erlangen, den 1. November I968. PAUL LORENZEN. Vorwort zur ersten Auflage. (shrink)

In this paper we first show that Robin Smith’s ecthetic system SE for Aristotle’s assertoric syllogistic is not complete, despite what is claimed by Smith. SE is then not adequate to establish that ecthesis allows one to dispense with indirect or per impossibile deductions in Aristotle’s assertoric logic. As an alternative to SE, we then present a stronger system EC which is adequate for this purpose. EC is a nonexplosive ecthetic system which is shown to be sound and complete with (...) respect to all valid syllogistic arguments with a consistent set of premises. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to explain the proofs Aristotle calls proofs "by exposition" and to find out the rules and principles these proofs rest on. The first part shows why previous attempts to explain Aristotle's method of "exposition" have failed. The second part develops a new explanation and reconstructs all of Aristotle's expository proofs on the basis of a few simple rules. The last part shows that the new interpretation of Aristotle's method has very important consequences regarding, firstly, (...) the extent to which Aristotle's logic is valid, secondly, the relationship between syllogistic and geometric exposition and, last but not least, the correct understanding of the principles underlying Aristotle's logical system and the correct understanding of what a "complete" syllogism is. Thus, the article solves a number of fundamental problems concerning the interpretation of Aristotle's syllogistic. (shrink)

After presenting the rules of Eleatic antilogic, i.e., dialectic, I argue that Zeno was a practitioner, and, on the basis of key passages from Plato’s Parmenides (127e-128e and 135d-136c), that his paradoxes of divisibility and movement were notreductio ad absurdum, but simple derivation of impossibilities (adunaton) meant to ridicule Parmenides’ adversaries. Thus, Zeno did not try to prove that there is no motion, but simply derived this consequence from premises held by his opponents. I argue further that these paradoxes were (...) devised, in accordance with Eleatic antilogic, following a scheme that included hypotheses and their contradictories, within which the subject is to be treated both “in relation to itself,” and “in relation to other things”. (shrink)