The Radical Academy Discussion Forum

Ivo

Aug 21, 07 - 2:45 AM

Barbara

Is Kevin trying to teach us the parts of a syllogism and the four figures?

http://www.friesian.com/aristotl.htm

Parts of a syllogism:
A: a universal affirmative proposition--All S is P
E: a universal negative proposition--No S is P
I: a particular affirmative proposition--Some S is P
O: a particular negative proposition--Some S is not P
+
First Figure: BARBARA, CELARENT, DARII, FERIO
Second Figure: CESARE, CAMESTRES, FESTINO, BAROCO
Third Figure: DARAPTI, DISAMIS, DATISI, FELAPTON, BOCARDO, FERISON
Fourth Figure: BRAMANTIP, CAMENES, DIMARIS, FESAPO, FRESISON
+
The names of the moods are in a code that tells how to convert the
syllogism in question to a syllogism of the first figure, which was
regarded as more perfect:
[…]
c: an “indirect” reduction to BARBARA by contradicting the conclusion,
using it as a premise and deriving the contradiction of the premise
followed by "c", which becomes a ‘reductio ad absurdum’ of the denial of the mood, e.g. BOCARDO, extended to the derivation of the conclusion from the original premises

Kevin

Aug 21st, 2007 - 10:26 AM

Re: Barbara

IVO:
Is Kevin trying to teach us the parts of a syllogism and the four figures?

No! Just some sentential LOGIC, according to Aristotle's "square/s" of the logical opposition of propositions.

It is true that the various types of propositions...

(1) Universal Affirmative (Symbolized as "A", the first vowel of the Latin term "Affirmo"; English =
AFFIRMATIVE; per scholastic "mnemonics"), (2) Universal Negative (Thus "E"; the first vowel of the Latin term NEGO; English = NEGATIVE), (3) Particular Affirmative ("I"; the 2nd vowel of the Latin AFFIRMO) and (4) the Particular Negative ("O"; the 2nd vowel of the Latin term NEGO)...

...are employed in syllogisms involving 2 premises (Major and Minor), with 3 and only 3 terms in the two premises, which LEAD to a third concluding proposition, where only 2 of the 3 terms are stated and which FOLLOWS from the major and minor premises.

The 3rd term, in a correctly argued SYLLOGISM, drops-out of the concluding proposition. It has functioned in dividing or uniting what Aristotle calls the 2 "extreme" terms. The dividing/uniting term, Aristotle calls "the middle".

As you mention, syllogisms have "4 figures". Jacques Maritain describes the "4rth figure" as an "indirect-First" figure; a fine point or distinction by a logician. Maritain was a fine logician, although he is oft-dismissed as a dogmatic "Neo-Thomist". He is too smart and too logical for me. I "get" little of what he says about figures and moods of syllogisms.

But if I get confused on points of logic and have actually been trying hard to "get them", he can, fairly often, clear up my muddled "thinking".

In short, I am not writing about SYLLOGISM (deductive reasoning from (1) Major-proposition to (2) Minor-proposition to (3) Conclusion; eg. (1)Every man is mortal (Major); (2) Socrates is a man (Minor); (3) Hence/(Therefore/it-follows), Socrates is mortal (conclusion).

I was long ignorant that the classical example of a syllogism, above mentioned, was a BARBARA syllogism (Affirmo; Affirmo; Affirmo)! The expression "EVERY"-Socrates is mortal, isn't in the Classical example.

According to some competent logicians premises involving unique individuals are treated as if they were universal propositions! I don't recall all the justifications for that thesis (maybe it is only for AFFIRMATIVE propositions involving individuals). But one of the justifications may be that any UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE, when converted (subject/predicate terms reversed) only yields a particular proposition. eg. Every man is mortal ("A"), if converted, is logically converted to "Some mortal is a man" ("I") and NOT converted to "Every mortal is a man" ("A"), for there are far more mortal things than "MAN".

In other posts I am not writing about SYLLOGISMS; just propositions which may be used in syllogisms.

Rather, I am writing about sentential or propositional LOGIC according to Aristotle (On Interpretation) and his "squares" of the logical opposition of propositions.

Aristotle had an ORDERLY mind. The CATEGORIES gives us the LOGIC of mere logical terms (10 Categorical Terms) which he describes as "expressions which are in no way composite". All 10 terms have what Aristotle calls peculiar marks or "notes". Some of the terms have common "notes" too.

It is an "underrated" treatise methinks, especially by people like Hume and Kant

ON INTERPRETATION, his second logic treatise, features the LOGIC of simple PROPOSITIONS. In that treatise he takes simple terms (from the CATEGORIES) and teaches about how they are composed with each other or divided from each other via AFFIRMATIVE and NEGATIVE kinds of PROPOSITIONS. Thus your references to AEI and O propositions.

It is in the LOGIC OF PROPOSITIONS where the LAW OF THOUGHT (or what you call PNC) plays the most significant role, because of Aristotle's emphasis on how TRUE propositions CONTRADICT and are CONTRADICTED-by FALSE propositions.

He also deals with MODAL propositions; not only CATEGORICAL propositions; in that treatise --- the "modes" being, (1) contingency (hypothetical or scientific reasoning) (2) necessity, (3) possibility and (4) impossibility.

He is careful to argue that if every sort of proposition MUST BE either TRUE or FALSE; even future propositions; then everything IS or OCCURS or WILL OCCUR of necessity.

Thus EVERYTHING is DETERMINED; Nothing left to chance, choice, or luck! Aristotle's review in ON INTERPRETATION is a good "synopsis" of DETERMINISM. Since he was no determinist he, then, took pains to argue against the thesis that every sort of proposition is TRUE or FALSE "of necessity".

ARISTOTLE:
"The rule which 'holds good', in things which EXIST- ACTUALLY does NOT 'hold' for contingent or possible "modal" propositions." Something like that.

I haven't proceeded to SYLLOGISM with posts on Socrates (YES! I think he did "syllogize" about being "NOT WISE"). Just propositions.

Kevin

Ivo

Aug 21st, 2007 - 5:51 PM

Re: Barbara

I'm more and more confused.

We started discussing GREEK philosophers Socrates and Aristotle.
And now we're using the LATIN term "Affirmo".
Do these four figures originate in/from Aristotle?

I was not aware that Jacques Maritain had anything to say on logic.

Long ago, Aristotle identified the existence of certain “aporia”, philosophical puzzles or ‘knots’ that can only resolved or ‘untied’ when the perplexed find and make the right distinctions.
+
Aristotle was also correct when he understood that the basic laws of logic and reasoning are, like the heavens, part of the fixed structure of reality.
Reasoning depends upon first principles (for example, the logical principles of identity
(Ivo: Aristotle does not know this principle)
or non-contradiction.)
(John G. Trapani, Jr., “Introduction: “The Blind Men and the Elephant” – Understanding the Secret of Epistemological Realism”, in: Trapani, (ed.), “Truth Matters – Essays in Honor of Jacques Maritain”, American Maritain Association, 2004, 1, pp. 1 and 2).

In the said introduction, Trapani goes on to make seven distinctions as regards truth and epistemological realism.
The section devoted to these distinctions contains nine footnotes.
One refers to Maritain, the eight others to our own Dr. Mortimer J. Adler.

Perhaps, Dr Adler can brush away some of my confusion?

If only Adler’s “Aristotle for Everybody” had an index!

Kevin

Aug 22nd, 2007 - 2:52 PM

Re: Barbara

Re: Barbara
IVO:
I'm more and more confused.

REPLY:
That is because you have not made PNC and other Aristotelian "stuff" your own. That takes time, according to Aristotle.

IVO
We started discussing GREEK philosophers Socrates and Aristotle.
And now we're using the LATIN term "Affirmo".

REPLY:
Of course, LATIN! Don't be so superficial. Try listening to Aristotle. The word or language doesn't matter. It is the meaning that matters. Read ON INTERPRETATION. Of course if you don't know the meanings of words in your own language, then not knowing the meanings of words in Greek or Latin either, won't help.

We know of Aristotle and Socrates in LATIN and our own vernacular languages because "most Greeks" didn't listen to Socrates (they killed him) or Aristotle (they ran him out of Athens). In contrast, the Arabs and the Latins did listen to Aristotle more carefully.

The Greeks listened more to Plato, although they watched his Academy "like Hawks", in case an actual philosopher tried to become an actual King, or, God forbid, an actual King became a philosopher. Fortunately for the politicians the Academics, beginning with Speusippus, concentrated on Geometry and lost interest in politics.

Aristotle was the only Academic to convert a sort of King to philosophy, in contrast to Plato who failed in the cases of both Dion (Plato's "consort" on one account) and Dionysius (II?; nephew of Uncle Dion?) of Syracuse at Sicily.

In Aristotle's successful case, the "King" was actually a Greek (benevolent) Tyrant in a little Greek city State in Persia (Aetarneus or some such name). Aristotle converted him to philosophy, married a woman who was either his daughter or "adopted" niece and was mortified when the Persian State Police kidnapped his father-in-Law and tortured him to death; probably suspecting that "The Greeks" were fomenting another rebellion on Persian soil.

Aristotle and his wife fled from Persia to Lesbos and later moved to Macedonia for the (once again; YAWN!) "disputed" tutelage of young Alexander the Great. When that was done and Alexander's career of the actual conquest of Persia was underway, Aristotle returned to Athens and founded The Lyceum, where the associates were more like "Graduate Students", than mathematics undergraduates, or young people attending a Political School (ie. Academics), and mature researchers (ie. Aristotle's associates were more like today's grad-students/profs).

MORE ON THE LATIN:
Aristotle died "in disgrace" (among Athenians) in 321 B.C., on his mother's estate on the (long) island of Euobea (just off the East coast of Attica) having fled Athens when he was indicted on the same trumped up charges brought against Socrates (Atheism; Corrupting Youth).

One of his associates carried on as head of the Lyceum at Athens. But his writings (or the lecture notes of his Peripatetic associates; more "disputes") disappeared for about 100 years, which brings us to around 221 B.C. or thereabouts. Greece comes under Roman/Latin dominion about 167 B.C. and Greek was still the "scholarly language" of Romans in Cicero's time (contemporary with both Julius and Augustus Caezar) --- EVEN IN St. Augustine's time. But Augustine, who was beaten by his "Greek tutor", refused to speak or to write in Greek, starting a trend among Latin scholars, thereafter. ie. Write in your own language.

Cicero was familiar with Aristotle, as well as Socrates and Plato, for everytime he was out of favour at Rome, he went to Athens and discussed philosophy (and arguably logic) with Graeco Romans or "Hellenists" (ie. Graeco Roman citizens who were Athenians). I think Cicero knew logic quite well because he didn't lose many (if any?) law cases, otherwise known as dialectical debates (more correctly:- DIALECTICAL SOPHISTRY).

So CICERO was probably one Latin guy who appreciated Aristotle in both Greek and Latin.

More on WHY Aristotle in LATIN, later. I'm OUTTA HERE (for now). Back shortly...

Kevin

Kevin

Aug 22nd, 2007 - 2:59 PM

Re: Barbara

WHY ARISTOTLE IN LATIN, more than Greek?

Aristotle's LOGIC treatises were certainly familiar to and doubtlessly employed by the Peripatetics. But the STOICS also taught logic to Greek people and it was the Stoics from whom most Greek logicians learned the art (more like dialectic than logic). In contrast, it was the Romans/Latins who made use of Aristotle's treatises on Logic, notably Boethius near the end of the Roman Empire; shortly before the so-called "dark ages".

After that, Aristotle's LOGIC WORKS were primarily known to scholars in the Muslim caliphates (where their conquered Greek "infidels" and pagans didn't have much "clout"). By the "dawn" of late medieval civilization we find that secular Latin Averroists are "clobbering" Augustinian "theologians" (read clerics) in debate in Arts Faculties of burgeoning medieval universities, using (guess what?) their knowledge of Aristotle's LOGIC, in Latin, translated from Arabic (or whatever scholarly "tongue" that muslim philosophers actually used).

In short, the Greeks never used Aristotle much. The arabs (both theologians and philosophers) certainly knew his LOGIC treatises and used them in their own languages. Medieval Latin Averroists picked up Aristotelian LOGIC primarily from Averroes (a Moorish-Spanish muslim lawyer/judge and physician from Cordova; 12th century).

But since muslims were terribly "suspect" with medieval Latin Churchmen, the clerical scholars, like Aquinas, went back to their Greek speaking colleagues for fresh translations of Aristotle INTO LATIN (What else?!!!) Averroes became "THE COMMENTATOR" to Aquinas and his colleagues of "the schools".

Thus, instead of hearing terms like KATAPHASIS, used by Aristotle, we hear the Latin equivalent, AFFIRMO (which becomes affirmation or affirmative in English). Instead of the Greek term APOPHASIS we hear the Latin equivalent which is NEGO (becomes negation and negative in English). Instead of the Greek terms ANTIPHASIS and ANTITHESIS, we hear the English terms CONTRADICTION and OPPOSITION.

Latin-medievals didn't have spare pieces of paper (vellum animal skin manuscripts were the norm; because they weren't anywhere near papyrus plants in Europe) to write on. So they invented certain "memory aids" or mnemonics to help them remember kinds of syllogisms.

Thus those latin names like BARBARA and CELARENT, where the vowels stand for the kinds of premises allowable in valid syllogisms.

eg.The vowels of bArbArA symbolize 3 UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE propositions. The vowels of cElArEnt, signify a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE (major); a UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE (minor); and a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE (conclusion), etc.

A contemporary of St. Thomas Aquinas is responsible for both the Latin mnemonics, indicated by the vowels and the conversion rules signified by means of the consonants in those LATIN names.

So THAT IS WHY Aristotle, in LATIN. Next--- answering questions and making comments.

Kevin

Kevin

Aug 22nd, 2007 - 3:06 PM

Re: Barbara

IVO (asks):
Do these four figures originate in/from Aristotle?

ANSWER:
Three of the four figures originate with Aristotle. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of THE PRIOR ANALYTICS. Thus, perhaps, the hesitance of guys like Maritain to accept the 4rth figure group, calling it only an indirect 1st figure. However Hugh McCall (BASIC LOGIC) thinks that at least two of the valid 4rth-figure syllogisms are UNIQUE and most of the others (6 in total?) are obviously indirect 1st figure syllogisms. "FIGURE" indicates the position of the MIDDLE TERM (subject? predicate?) in relation to the major and minor terms, of the major and minor propositions/premises. Of course the MIDDLE term never ends up in the conclusion (3rd proposition) of any logically-VALID syllogism.

2 places for the middle term (subject or predicate) X 2 propositions (major; minor) = 4 possible combinations = 4 figures.

IVO:
I was not aware that Jacques Maritain had anything to say on logic.

COMMENT:
He "said" a WHOLE BOOK, and promised (but failed to deliver) at least 2 more books!!! The book was originally called "Petite Logique" (Formal or Minor Logic); Jacques Maritain; Sheed and Ward (1946); translation of the 8th French Edition by Imelda Choquette (1937). He also penned an INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY (which is CAUSTIC as all get out; He was quite young and still ANGRY at the time.)

Maritain's LOGIC TEXT may have been 1st written, in French of course, in the late 1920's or early 1930's. He never got round to writing his promised treatises on either MAJOR LOGIC or CRITQUE. Arguably WWII "sidetracked" him and then his duties as the ambassador of France to the U.N. turned him into a political animal instead of a merely logical animal. Exceptionally logical. He spends much of his time and words in "Petite Logique" writing copious footnotes criticizing the argued errors of other logicians; quoting John Stewart Mill (etc. etc.); and citing/criticizing other writers of TEXTBOOKS on LOGIC.

IVO:
Long ago, Aristotle identified the existence of certain “aporia”, philosophical puzzles or ‘knots’ that can only resolved or ‘untied’ when the perplexed find and make the right distinctions.

COMMENT:
APORIA (no escape; no holes/pores; non-porous; a.k.a. brickwall). Aporia is what Socrates and Plato demonstrate and which predominates in most of the Dialogues, given the fact that most of Socrates's dialogue partners CONTRADICT their previous propositions. But APORIA are not predominantly featured in Aristotle's writings.

IVO:
+
Aristotle was also correct when he understood that the basic laws (Oh! An improvement! Ivo has learned that there are LAWS of thought; KB) of logic and reasoning are, like the heavens, part of the fixed structure of reality.

COMMENT:
The fixed STRUCTURE of reality, you say? Still listening to Kant? We go from Kant's MENTAL STRUCTURES to a STRUCTURED REALITY. What do tidal waves, earthquakes, hurricanes, exploding stars, entropy, an expanding universe, death and decay; in short CHANGE and MOTION; tell you about a structured-reality, Ivo? As to the LAWS of logic, they are about how THE MIND MOVES from one true proposition, to another true proposition, to a less known/understood, but also TRUE, conclusion. Mental movement; NOT structure; = inference.

IVO:
Reasoning depends upon first principles (for example, the logical principles of identity (Ivo: Aristotle does not know this principle)
or non-contradiction. (Kevin: CORRECTION! Ivo does not know. Aristotle did. Ivo only has OPINION. Aristotle KNEW.)

(John G. Trapani, Jr., “Introduction: “The Blind Men and the Elephant” – Understanding the Secret of Epistemological Realism”, in: Trapani, (ed.), “Truth Matters – Essays in Honor of Jacques Maritain”, American Maritain Association, 2004, 1, pp. 1 and 2).

CRITICISM:
The logical principles ARE identity and non-identiy. Hence affirmation (identifying subject with predicate) and negation (denying predicate of subject; and/or subject of predicate). Contradiction is BOTH identifying and NOT-identifying the same predicate, of the same subject, at the same time, in the same respect.

Aristotle KNEW all the PRINCIPLES of logical discourse, which is WHY he was competent to write, or, perhaps, recite from memory, the world's first 6 LOGIC TREATISES. But he underestimated hypothetical syllogism, which is all the "rage" among scientists (who apply it; often unthinkingly, as a method) and modern logicians (who often misapply it completely out of its appropriate existential context/s).

IVO:
In the said introduction, Trapani goes on to make seven distinctions as regards truth and epistemological realism. (Bravo! Care to mention or explain them some time, on the TOPIC of IRREFUTABLY- CERTAIN-KNOWLEDGE-REALISM? aka epistemological realism KB)

One more to go...
KB

Kevin

Aug 22nd, 2007 - 3:22 PM

Re: Barbara

IVO: The section devoted to these distinctions contains nine footnotes.
One refers to Maritain, the eight others to our own Dr. Mortimer J. Adler.
[SNIDE COMMENT:- Sounds like Trapani was imitating the 7 HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE; ie. The 7 secrets of epistmiological realism. Glad that he footnoted Dr. Adler, though]

COMMENT
Adler was one of Maritain's best students. It was Maritain who told him to quit trying to "impress" modern academics with Aristotle because they wouldn't listen to Aristotle or, consequently, himself. So Maritain told Adler that he might have better luck by writing about Aristotle for the literate American reading public...

(which is exactly what Maritain did in consquence of the stubborn resistance to reason and to Aristotle among his own French academic "colleagues"; He turned to the literate French reading public instead of French "Academics")

...Ergo, ARISTOTLE FOR EVERYBODY was one consequence of Maritain's advice to Dr. Adler.

IVO:
Perhaps, Dr Adler can brush away some of my confusion?

REPLY:
Yes. Perhaps. Begin by reading Chapter 17 (Logic's Little Words) under MAN THE KNOWER.

There is where Adler argues that the LAW OF THOUGHT (your term PNC) contains both an implicit moral injunction (Do not contradict thyself.) and is an explicit self-evident proposition concerning "reality" (even Adler uses the term), to the effect that the same thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time; or have and not-have the same attribute at the same time.

Aristotle referred more to existent substances (using past; present; future tenses of the verb "to be") and their existential ATTRIBUTES (distinguishing potentiality from actuality, thereby diverging from Plato)...

[ATTRIBUTES: accidents; sumbebekos; the 9 Thought Categories predicated of the first Category = SUBSTANCE (eg. Socrates; Horse) & SECONDARY SUBSTANCE = EIDOS = SPECIES in English (Thus HOMO/genus SAPIENS/species); ie. SECONDARY SUBSTANCE means "substance- QUALITATIVELY-differentiated", indicating both a genus and species, rather than individuals, like Socrates or Bucephalus (Alexander The Great's individual horse)]

...than to the ephemereal, and quite frankly, crassly IDEALIZED over-generalization, termed "reality" (The sum of all real things!).

IVO:
If only Adler’s “Aristotle for Everybody” had an index!

REPLY:
I don't know what edition of "ARISTOTLE FOR..." which you have because I checked one of your quotes which was NOT on the page you cited (from your edition) in my 1980-1983 Bantam Books Edition.

So maybe your edition differs radically from mine (although I think I found your quote on a different page of my edition). At any rate, in my edition Adler provides an "alternative TABLE OF CONTENTS" for each of his Chapters, where he cites the Books and Chapters of Aristotle's Works upon which he relied to write his own expositional Chapters of Aristotle's "uncommon common-sense" philosophy. Those parallel CONTENT TABLES are in the Epilogue of ARISTOTLE FOR EVERYBODY (at least in my copy of the book) and should suffice for an index.

But if you don't understand mere terms...(???)...then you might have to start ANSWERING my questions instead of reading TRAPANI (whoever he is, which is certainly not ARISTOTLE).

Have you ever seen your eyes, Ivo?
Have you ever seen your ideas, Ivo?

Kevin

Author	Comment
Ivo Aug 21, 07 - 2:45 AM	Barbara Is Kevin trying to teach us the parts of a syllogism and the four figures? http://www.friesian.com/aristotl.htm Parts of a syllogism: A: a universal affirmative proposition--All S is P E: a universal negative proposition--No S is P I: a particular affirmative proposition--Some S is P O: a particular negative proposition--Some S is not P + First Figure: BARBARA, CELARENT, DARII, FERIO Second Figure: CESARE, CAMESTRES, FESTINO, BAROCO Third Figure: DARAPTI, DISAMIS, DATISI, FELAPTON, BOCARDO, FERISON Fourth Figure: BRAMANTIP, CAMENES, DIMARIS, FESAPO, FRESISON + The names of the moods are in a code that tells how to convert the syllogism in question to a syllogism of the first figure, which was regarded as more perfect: […] c: an “indirect” reduction to BARBARA by contradicting the conclusion, using it as a premise and deriving the contradiction of the premise followed by "c", which becomes a ‘reductio ad absurdum’ of the denial of the mood, e.g. BOCARDO, extended to the derivation of the conclusion from the original premises Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Aug 21st, 2007 - 10:26 AM	Re: Barbara IVO: Is Kevin trying to teach us the parts of a syllogism and the four figures? No! Just some sentential LOGIC, according to Aristotle's "square/s" of the logical opposition of propositions. It is true that the various types of propositions... (1) Universal Affirmative (Symbolized as "A", the first vowel of the Latin term "Affirmo"; English = AFFIRMATIVE; per scholastic "mnemonics"), (2) Universal Negative (Thus "E"; the first vowel of the Latin term NEGO; English = NEGATIVE), (3) Particular Affirmative ("I"; the 2nd vowel of the Latin AFFIRMO) and (4) the Particular Negative ("O"; the 2nd vowel of the Latin term NEGO)... ...are employed in syllogisms involving 2 premises (Major and Minor), with 3 and only 3 terms in the two premises, which LEAD to a third concluding proposition, where only 2 of the 3 terms are stated and which FOLLOWS from the major and minor premises. The 3rd term, in a correctly argued SYLLOGISM, drops-out of the concluding proposition. It has functioned in dividing or uniting what Aristotle calls the 2 "extreme" terms. The dividing/uniting term, Aristotle calls "the middle". As you mention, syllogisms have "4 figures". Jacques Maritain describes the "4rth figure" as an "indirect-First" figure; a fine point or distinction by a logician. Maritain was a fine logician, although he is oft-dismissed as a dogmatic "Neo-Thomist". He is too smart and too logical for me. I "get" little of what he says about figures and moods of syllogisms. But if I get confused on points of logic and have actually been trying hard to "get them", he can, fairly often, clear up my muddled "thinking". In short, I am not writing about SYLLOGISM (deductive reasoning from (1) Major-proposition to (2) Minor-proposition to (3) Conclusion; eg. (1)Every man is mortal (Major); (2) Socrates is a man (Minor); (3) Hence/(Therefore/it-follows), Socrates is mortal (conclusion). I was long ignorant that the classical example of a syllogism, above mentioned, was a BARBARA syllogism (Affirmo; Affirmo; Affirmo)! The expression "EVERY"-Socrates is mortal, isn't in the Classical example. According to some competent logicians premises involving unique individuals are treated as if they were universal propositions! I don't recall all the justifications for that thesis (maybe it is only for AFFIRMATIVE propositions involving individuals). But one of the justifications may be that any UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE, when converted (subject/predicate terms reversed) only yields a particular proposition. eg. Every man is mortal ("A"), if converted, is logically converted to "Some mortal is a man" ("I") and NOT converted to "Every mortal is a man" ("A"), for there are far more mortal things than "MAN". In other posts I am not writing about SYLLOGISMS; just propositions which may be used in syllogisms. Rather, I am writing about sentential or propositional LOGIC according to Aristotle (On Interpretation) and his "squares" of the logical opposition of propositions. Aristotle had an ORDERLY mind. The CATEGORIES gives us the LOGIC of mere logical terms (10 Categorical Terms) which he describes as "expressions which are in no way composite". All 10 terms have what Aristotle calls peculiar marks or "notes". Some of the terms have common "notes" too. It is an "underrated" treatise methinks, especially by people like Hume and Kant ON INTERPRETATION, his second logic treatise, features the LOGIC of simple PROPOSITIONS. In that treatise he takes simple terms (from the CATEGORIES) and teaches about how they are composed with each other or divided from each other via AFFIRMATIVE and NEGATIVE kinds of PROPOSITIONS. Thus your references to AEI and O propositions. It is in the LOGIC OF PROPOSITIONS where the LAW OF THOUGHT (or what you call PNC) plays the most significant role, because of Aristotle's emphasis on how TRUE propositions CONTRADICT and are CONTRADICTED-by FALSE propositions. He also deals with MODAL propositions; not only CATEGORICAL propositions; in that treatise --- the "modes" being, (1) contingency (hypothetical or scientific reasoning) (2) necessity, (3) possibility and (4) impossibility. He is careful to argue that if every sort of proposition MUST BE either TRUE or FALSE; even future propositions; then everything IS or OCCURS or WILL OCCUR of necessity. Thus EVERYTHING is DETERMINED; Nothing left to chance, choice, or luck! Aristotle's review in ON INTERPRETATION is a good "synopsis" of DETERMINISM. Since he was no determinist he, then, took pains to argue against the thesis that every sort of proposition is TRUE or FALSE "of necessity". ARISTOTLE: "The rule which 'holds good', in things which EXIST- ACTUALLY does NOT 'hold' for contingent or possible "modal" propositions." Something like that. I haven't proceeded to SYLLOGISM with posts on Socrates (YES! I think he did "syllogize" about being "NOT WISE"). Just propositions. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Ivo Aug 21st, 2007 - 5:51 PM	Re: Barbara I'm more and more confused. We started discussing GREEK philosophers Socrates and Aristotle. And now we're using the LATIN term "Affirmo". Do these four figures originate in/from Aristotle? I was not aware that Jacques Maritain had anything to say on logic. Long ago, Aristotle identified the existence of certain “aporia”, philosophical puzzles or ‘knots’ that can only resolved or ‘untied’ when the perplexed find and make the right distinctions. + Aristotle was also correct when he understood that the basic laws of logic and reasoning are, like the heavens, part of the fixed structure of reality. Reasoning depends upon first principles (for example, the logical principles of identity (Ivo: Aristotle does not know this principle) or non-contradiction.) (John G. Trapani, Jr., “Introduction: “The Blind Men and the Elephant” – Understanding the Secret of Epistemological Realism”, in: Trapani, (ed.), “Truth Matters – Essays in Honor of Jacques Maritain”, American Maritain Association, 2004, 1, pp. 1 and 2). In the said introduction, Trapani goes on to make seven distinctions as regards truth and epistemological realism. The section devoted to these distinctions contains nine footnotes. One refers to Maritain, the eight others to our own Dr. Mortimer J. Adler. Perhaps, Dr Adler can brush away some of my confusion? If only Adler’s “Aristotle for Everybody” had an index! Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Aug 22nd, 2007 - 2:52 PM	Re: Barbara Re: Barbara IVO: I'm more and more confused. REPLY: That is because you have not made PNC and other Aristotelian "stuff" your own. That takes time, according to Aristotle. IVO We started discussing GREEK philosophers Socrates and Aristotle. And now we're using the LATIN term "Affirmo". REPLY: Of course, LATIN! Don't be so superficial. Try listening to Aristotle. The word or language doesn't matter. It is the meaning that matters. Read ON INTERPRETATION. Of course if you don't know the meanings of words in your own language, then not knowing the meanings of words in Greek or Latin either, won't help. We know of Aristotle and Socrates in LATIN and our own vernacular languages because "most Greeks" didn't listen to Socrates (they killed him) or Aristotle (they ran him out of Athens). In contrast, the Arabs and the Latins did listen to Aristotle more carefully. The Greeks listened more to Plato, although they watched his Academy "like Hawks", in case an actual philosopher tried to become an actual King, or, God forbid, an actual King became a philosopher. Fortunately for the politicians the Academics, beginning with Speusippus, concentrated on Geometry and lost interest in politics. Aristotle was the only Academic to convert a sort of King to philosophy, in contrast to Plato who failed in the cases of both Dion (Plato's "consort" on one account) and Dionysius (II?; nephew of Uncle Dion?) of Syracuse at Sicily. In Aristotle's successful case, the "King" was actually a Greek (benevolent) Tyrant in a little Greek city State in Persia (Aetarneus or some such name). Aristotle converted him to philosophy, married a woman who was either his daughter or "adopted" niece and was mortified when the Persian State Police kidnapped his father-in-Law and tortured him to death; probably suspecting that "The Greeks" were fomenting another rebellion on Persian soil. Aristotle and his wife fled from Persia to Lesbos and later moved to Macedonia for the (once again; YAWN!) "disputed" tutelage of young Alexander the Great. When that was done and Alexander's career of the actual conquest of Persia was underway, Aristotle returned to Athens and founded The Lyceum, where the associates were more like "Graduate Students", than mathematics undergraduates, or young people attending a Political School (ie. Academics), and mature researchers (ie. Aristotle's associates were more like today's grad-students/profs). MORE ON THE LATIN: Aristotle died "in disgrace" (among Athenians) in 321 B.C., on his mother's estate on the (long) island of Euobea (just off the East coast of Attica) having fled Athens when he was indicted on the same trumped up charges brought against Socrates (Atheism; Corrupting Youth). One of his associates carried on as head of the Lyceum at Athens. But his writings (or the lecture notes of his Peripatetic associates; more "disputes") disappeared for about 100 years, which brings us to around 221 B.C. or thereabouts. Greece comes under Roman/Latin dominion about 167 B.C. and Greek was still the "scholarly language" of Romans in Cicero's time (contemporary with both Julius and Augustus Caezar) --- EVEN IN St. Augustine's time. But Augustine, who was beaten by his "Greek tutor", refused to speak or to write in Greek, starting a trend among Latin scholars, thereafter. ie. Write in your own language. Cicero was familiar with Aristotle, as well as Socrates and Plato, for everytime he was out of favour at Rome, he went to Athens and discussed philosophy (and arguably logic) with Graeco Romans or "Hellenists" (ie. Graeco Roman citizens who were Athenians). I think Cicero knew logic quite well because he didn't lose many (if any?) law cases, otherwise known as dialectical debates (more correctly:- DIALECTICAL SOPHISTRY). So CICERO was probably one Latin guy who appreciated Aristotle in both Greek and Latin. More on WHY Aristotle in LATIN, later. I'm OUTTA HERE (for now). Back shortly... Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Aug 22nd, 2007 - 2:59 PM	Re: Barbara WHY ARISTOTLE IN LATIN, more than Greek? Aristotle's LOGIC treatises were certainly familiar to and doubtlessly employed by the Peripatetics. But the STOICS also taught logic to Greek people and it was the Stoics from whom most Greek logicians learned the art (more like dialectic than logic). In contrast, it was the Romans/Latins who made use of Aristotle's treatises on Logic, notably Boethius near the end of the Roman Empire; shortly before the so-called "dark ages". After that, Aristotle's LOGIC WORKS were primarily known to scholars in the Muslim caliphates (where their conquered Greek "infidels" and pagans didn't have much "clout"). By the "dawn" of late medieval civilization we find that secular Latin Averroists are "clobbering" Augustinian "theologians" (read clerics) in debate in Arts Faculties of burgeoning medieval universities, using (guess what?) their knowledge of Aristotle's LOGIC, in Latin, translated from Arabic (or whatever scholarly "tongue" that muslim philosophers actually used). In short, the Greeks never used Aristotle much. The arabs (both theologians and philosophers) certainly knew his LOGIC treatises and used them in their own languages. Medieval Latin Averroists picked up Aristotelian LOGIC primarily from Averroes (a Moorish-Spanish muslim lawyer/judge and physician from Cordova; 12th century). But since muslims were terribly "suspect" with medieval Latin Churchmen, the clerical scholars, like Aquinas, went back to their Greek speaking colleagues for fresh translations of Aristotle INTO LATIN (What else?!!!) Averroes became "THE COMMENTATOR" to Aquinas and his colleagues of "the schools". Thus, instead of hearing terms like KATAPHASIS, used by Aristotle, we hear the Latin equivalent, AFFIRMO (which becomes affirmation or affirmative in English). Instead of the Greek term APOPHASIS we hear the Latin equivalent which is NEGO (becomes negation and negative in English). Instead of the Greek terms ANTIPHASIS and ANTITHESIS, we hear the English terms CONTRADICTION and OPPOSITION. Latin-medievals didn't have spare pieces of paper (vellum animal skin manuscripts were the norm; because they weren't anywhere near papyrus plants in Europe) to write on. So they invented certain "memory aids" or mnemonics to help them remember kinds of syllogisms. Thus those latin names like BARBARA and CELARENT, where the vowels stand for the kinds of premises allowable in valid syllogisms. eg.The vowels of bArbArA symbolize 3 UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE propositions. The vowels of cElArEnt, signify a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE (major); a UNIVERSAL AFFIRMATIVE (minor); and a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE (conclusion), etc. A contemporary of St. Thomas Aquinas is responsible for both the Latin mnemonics, indicated by the vowels and the conversion rules signified by means of the consonants in those LATIN names. So THAT IS WHY Aristotle, in LATIN. Next--- answering questions and making comments. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Aug 22nd, 2007 - 3:06 PM	Re: Barbara IVO (asks): Do these four figures originate in/from Aristotle? ANSWER: Three of the four figures originate with Aristotle. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of THE PRIOR ANALYTICS. Thus, perhaps, the hesitance of guys like Maritain to accept the 4rth figure group, calling it only an indirect 1st figure. However Hugh McCall (BASIC LOGIC) thinks that at least two of the valid 4rth-figure syllogisms are UNIQUE and most of the others (6 in total?) are obviously indirect 1st figure syllogisms. "FIGURE" indicates the position of the MIDDLE TERM (subject? predicate?) in relation to the major and minor terms, of the major and minor propositions/premises. Of course the MIDDLE term never ends up in the conclusion (3rd proposition) of any logically-VALID syllogism. 2 places for the middle term (subject or predicate) X 2 propositions (major; minor) = 4 possible combinations = 4 figures. IVO: I was not aware that Jacques Maritain had anything to say on logic. COMMENT: He "said" a WHOLE BOOK, and promised (but failed to deliver) at least 2 more books!!! The book was originally called "Petite Logique" (Formal or Minor Logic); Jacques Maritain; Sheed and Ward (1946); translation of the 8th French Edition by Imelda Choquette (1937). He also penned an INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY (which is CAUSTIC as all get out; He was quite young and still ANGRY at the time.) Maritain's LOGIC TEXT may have been 1st written, in French of course, in the late 1920's or early 1930's. He never got round to writing his promised treatises on either MAJOR LOGIC or CRITQUE. Arguably WWII "sidetracked" him and then his duties as the ambassador of France to the U.N. turned him into a political animal instead of a merely logical animal. Exceptionally logical. He spends much of his time and words in "Petite Logique" writing copious footnotes criticizing the argued errors of other logicians; quoting John Stewart Mill (etc. etc.); and citing/criticizing other writers of TEXTBOOKS on LOGIC. IVO: Long ago, Aristotle identified the existence of certain “aporia”, philosophical puzzles or ‘knots’ that can only resolved or ‘untied’ when the perplexed find and make the right distinctions. COMMENT: APORIA (no escape; no holes/pores; non-porous; a.k.a. brickwall). Aporia is what Socrates and Plato demonstrate and which predominates in most of the Dialogues, given the fact that most of Socrates's dialogue partners CONTRADICT their previous propositions. But APORIA are not predominantly featured in Aristotle's writings. IVO: + Aristotle was also correct when he understood that the basic laws (Oh! An improvement! Ivo has learned that there are LAWS of thought; KB) of logic and reasoning are, like the heavens, part of the fixed structure of reality. COMMENT: The fixed STRUCTURE of reality, you say? Still listening to Kant? We go from Kant's MENTAL STRUCTURES to a STRUCTURED REALITY. What do tidal waves, earthquakes, hurricanes, exploding stars, entropy, an expanding universe, death and decay; in short CHANGE and MOTION; tell you about a structured-reality, Ivo? As to the LAWS of logic, they are about how THE MIND MOVES from one true proposition, to another true proposition, to a less known/understood, but also TRUE, conclusion. Mental movement; NOT structure; = inference. IVO: Reasoning depends upon first principles (for example, the logical principles of identity (Ivo: Aristotle does not know this principle) or non-contradiction. (Kevin: CORRECTION! Ivo does not know. Aristotle did. Ivo only has OPINION. Aristotle KNEW.) (John G. Trapani, Jr., “Introduction: “The Blind Men and the Elephant” – Understanding the Secret of Epistemological Realism”, in: Trapani, (ed.), “Truth Matters – Essays in Honor of Jacques Maritain”, American Maritain Association, 2004, 1, pp. 1 and 2). CRITICISM: The logical principles ARE identity and non-identiy. Hence affirmation (identifying subject with predicate) and negation (denying predicate of subject; and/or subject of predicate). Contradiction is BOTH identifying and NOT-identifying the same predicate, of the same subject, at the same time, in the same respect. Aristotle KNEW all the PRINCIPLES of logical discourse, which is WHY he was competent to write, or, perhaps, recite from memory, the world's first 6 LOGIC TREATISES. But he underestimated hypothetical syllogism, which is all the "rage" among scientists (who apply it; often unthinkingly, as a method) and modern logicians (who often misapply it completely out of its appropriate existential context/s). IVO: In the said introduction, Trapani goes on to make seven distinctions as regards truth and epistemological realism. (Bravo! Care to mention or explain them some time, on the TOPIC of IRREFUTABLY- CERTAIN-KNOWLEDGE-REALISM? aka epistemological realism KB) One more to go... KB Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Aug 22nd, 2007 - 3:22 PM	Re: Barbara IVO: The section devoted to these distinctions contains nine footnotes. One refers to Maritain, the eight others to our own Dr. Mortimer J. Adler. [SNIDE COMMENT:- Sounds like Trapani was imitating the 7 HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE; ie. The 7 secrets of epistmiological realism. Glad that he footnoted Dr. Adler, though] COMMENT Adler was one of Maritain's best students. It was Maritain who told him to quit trying to "impress" modern academics with Aristotle because they wouldn't listen to Aristotle or, consequently, himself. So Maritain told Adler that he might have better luck by writing about Aristotle for the literate American reading public... (which is exactly what Maritain did in consquence of the stubborn resistance to reason and to Aristotle among his own French academic "colleagues"; He turned to the literate French reading public instead of French "Academics") ...Ergo, ARISTOTLE FOR EVERYBODY was one consequence of Maritain's advice to Dr. Adler. IVO: Perhaps, Dr Adler can brush away some of my confusion? REPLY: Yes. Perhaps. Begin by reading Chapter 17 (Logic's Little Words) under MAN THE KNOWER. There is where Adler argues that the LAW OF THOUGHT (your term PNC) contains both an implicit moral injunction (Do not contradict thyself.) and is an explicit self-evident proposition concerning "reality" (even Adler uses the term), to the effect that the same thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time; or have and not-have the same attribute at the same time. Aristotle referred more to existent substances (using past; present; future tenses of the verb "to be") and their existential ATTRIBUTES (distinguishing potentiality from actuality, thereby diverging from Plato)... [ATTRIBUTES: accidents; sumbebekos; the 9 Thought Categories predicated of the first Category = SUBSTANCE (eg. Socrates; Horse) & SECONDARY SUBSTANCE = EIDOS = SPECIES in English (Thus HOMO/genus SAPIENS/species); ie. SECONDARY SUBSTANCE means "substance- QUALITATIVELY-differentiated", indicating both a genus and species, rather than individuals, like Socrates or Bucephalus (Alexander The Great's individual horse)] ...than to the ephemereal, and quite frankly, crassly IDEALIZED over-generalization, termed "reality" (The sum of all real things!). IVO: If only Adler’s “Aristotle for Everybody” had an index! REPLY: I don't know what edition of "ARISTOTLE FOR..." which you have because I checked one of your quotes which was NOT on the page you cited (from your edition) in my 1980-1983 Bantam Books Edition. So maybe your edition differs radically from mine (although I think I found your quote on a different page of my edition). At any rate, in my edition Adler provides an "alternative TABLE OF CONTENTS" for each of his Chapters, where he cites the Books and Chapters of Aristotle's Works upon which he relied to write his own expositional Chapters of Aristotle's "uncommon common-sense" philosophy. Those parallel CONTENT TABLES are in the Epilogue of ARISTOTLE FOR EVERYBODY (at least in my copy of the book) and should suffice for an index. But if you don't understand mere terms...(???)...then you might have to start ANSWERING my questions instead of reading TRAPANI (whoever he is, which is certainly not ARISTOTLE). Have you ever seen your eyes, Ivo? Have you ever seen your ideas, Ivo? Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com

	The Radical Academy Discussion Forum Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website