The Radical Academy Discussion Forum

Ivo

Aug 23, 07 - 1:42 AM

Enthymeme

Kevin,

1.
I do hereby TRY to reply to your replies in
Re: Barbara
http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/717387

2.
I do confirm that the edition of
Dr Mortimer J. Adler’s “Aristotle for everybody” I have
is the first (A) Touchstone (Book) edition of 1997
copyright Mortimer J. Adler 1978

Yes, it also contains an Epilogue “For Those Who Read or Who Wish to Read Aristotle”.
Thank You for drawing my attention to the fact that this may very well serve as an index.

3.
I think this was you:
You don't need Aristotle's LOGIC TREATISES because you won't understand them in your present state. You would profit more by Mortimer Jerome Adler's ARISTOTLE FOR EVERYBODY and by Dr. Adler's 10 PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKES written, respectively, for 14 year olds (Aristotle...) and adults (10 Philosophical Mistakes). As for LOGIC, you should get a copy of Hugh McCall's BASIC LOGIC, if you can't find a copy of Jacques Maritain's PETITE LOGIQUE (Formal/Minor LOGIC).

I should not have lost this out of sight.

4.
Here’s on top of p. 3 a nice picture of Aristotle’s square (it’s not in English but anybody should understand)
Logique : la theorie formelle des syllogismes
Marcel Crabbé
http://www.lofs.ucl.ac.be/log/perso/Crabbe/textes/syllogismes.pdf

Here’s Wikipedia in English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition
also with square.

Fr.wikipedia refers to Crabbé.

Okay, now I understand what you’re trying to get at.

Ivo

Aug 23rd, 2007 - 1:45 AM

Re: Enthymeme

5.
Let me try to translate some of what Crabbé is writing:

p. 1
Traditions get lost.
Logicians are no more interested in the theory of syllogism than chemists in alchemy.
However, contrary to alchemy and other sciences which are said to be outdated,
the formal theory of syllogisms is not wrong.
It is only very limited and poor with regard to the development of contemporary logic.
+
Only “On interpretation” and the “First Analytics” are relevant for logic in the strict sense.
This logic has been scolarised in the course of time and mainly during the Middle Ages.

p. 7
Up to the end of the Middle Ages, only three figures were being recognised,
the first and fourth figure being grouped together.

p. 13 footnote
AEOI propositions
Some say that the letters AEIO originate in the Latin words Affirmo and nEgo.
Others argue that these are simply the first four vowels of the Latin alphabet.

p. 8
In the Middle Ages, the theory of the temporary operations has been developed.
(Later) Kant gave in the Critique of Pure Reason his famous table of judgments from which Kant infers 12 categories.

Crabbé seems here to be overlooking that in his 1762 essay “The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Proved” (Die falsche Spitzfindigkeit der vier syllogistischen Figuren erwiesen)”,
Kant rejected the four syllogisms originating from the “medieval tradition”
(Ivo: only the first and/or the fourth originate in Medieval tradition)
as redundant
http://www.philosophisches-lesen.de/kant/1762.htmlhttp://www.philosophisches-lesen.de/kant/1762.html

Ivo

Aug 23rd, 2007 - 1:49 AM

Re: Enthymeme

6.
Let me now return to Adler’s chapter on “Logic’s Little Words” which in the Touchstone edition covers pp. 139 – 150.

Let me just quote the meaning of final paragraph of the chapter as I understand it:
The kind of compressed argument that omits or conceals indispensable premises, Aristotle called “enthymeme”.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme
SNIP
An enthymeme is an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. In a broader usage, the term "enthymeme" is sometimes used to describe an incomplete argument of forms other than the syllogism.

Artistotle gave no complete definition of the Enthymeme in his Rhetoric, and its exact definition has been debated by scholars.

I apologise for having been guilty of enthymeme by not answering your questions.

I have been busy here
http://forum.dinareconomy.com/viewtopic.php?t=16

Please note also that

1. your posts are sometimes very long and it’s not also easy to discern your questions

2. as you argue that, if we follow Kant, the bureaucrats of the National Socialist German government had to negate the orders of their superiors on the basis of categorical imperative (which can be formulated as ‘always consider a human being as a purpose not a means’),
I asked you in my
bureaucracy –post Aug 18, 07 - 3:28 PM
http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/716975 , still in the hypothesis that we follow Kant,
on what basis the categorical imperative is “superior” to the order of the superior (who, the latter, has also to take the categorical imperative into account).

As Dr Adler says on p. 212 of “The Great Ideas”, the rules of good discussion are easy enough to state […]. And I [Adler] think they are just as easy to understand. But the hard thing to do, says Adler, is to follow them.

That’s also applicable to both of us, I think. And certainly to me

Ivo Cerckel

Kevin

Aug 25th, 2007 - 6:20 PM

Re: Enthymeme

Kevin,

1.
I do hereby TRY to reply to your replies in
Re: Barbara
http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/717387
REPLY:
Nobody TRIES to do what they have already done. More correctly; I reply as follows...

2.
I do confirm that the edition of Dr Mortimer J. Adler’s “Aristotle for everybody” I have is the first (A) Touchstone (Book) edition of 1997 copyright Mortimer J. Adler 1978

Yes, it also contains an EPILOGUE (etc.)

3.
I think this was you:
You don't need Aristotle's LOGIC (etc. snipped)
I should not have lost this out of sight.

REPLY:
You mean:- I should not have lost sight of this post. But better, in English... I forgot. I failed to recall. etc.

Nobody is perfect. There is an English expression symbolizing the phenomenon in a real enthymeme:-
"Out of sight, Out of mind."

That enthymeme requires an extended argument to either "justify" or "refute" the enthymeme.

4.
Here’s on top of p. 3 a nice picture of Aristotle’s square Marcel Crabbé
http://www.lofs.ucl.ac.be/log/perso/Crabbe/textes/syllogismes.pdf

REPLY:
The link gets one to the sight, but his documents don't open on my browzer. We have a nice picture of the backbone on this very site.

Here’s Wikipedia in English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition
also with square.

Fr.wikipedia refers to Crabbé.

Okay, now I understand what you’re trying to get at.

REPLY:
Well fill in one of my "backbones" in an actual square of logical opposition. Ivo drove against a car beCAUSE he had found out the truth (meaning CAUSE) of his missing hand. VS. Ivo did NOT drive against a car BECAUSE a drunk driver drove against him and was jailed for the offence. Which is it?

Consult any picture of a "square" BECAUSE you, now, KNOW what I am getting at. KB
------------------------------------------

Kevin

Aug 25th, 2007 - 6:45 PM

Re: Enthymeme

Re: Enthymeme

5.
Let me try to translate some of what Crabbé is writing:

REPLY:
None of this is relevant to enthymemes. It is just a modern symbolic logician's OPINION that so-called "Aristotle's Logic" is not up to the standards of modern symbolic logic. The man obviously doesn't UNDERSTAND the purpose of THE CATEGORIES, which cover any kind of term that could ever be spoken or written in any language and introduced into either logically opposed propositions or reasoned arguments.

Aristotle had a point to make about all of (1) terms, (propositions and syllogisms. In the short run of time the NEGATIVE proposition holds sway for purposes of refuting errors, for negative propositions require negative conclusions. But in the long run positive propositions expressing KNOWLEDGE hold sway. Refuting errors is part of progressing in knowledge. The syllogism may be used for either purpose. So, too, the law of thought or principle of non-contradiction.

p. 1
Traditions get lost. Logicians are no more interested in the theory of syllogism than chemists in alchemy.

COMMENT:
Hence they don't know their own history as well as they ought to know it.

A MODERN LOGICIAN:
However, contrary to alchemy and other sciences which are said to be outdated, the formal theory of syllogisms is not wrong. It is only very limited and poor with regard to the development of contemporary logic.

COMMENT:
The reason he says the above is because MAJOR or material LOGIC which is entirely applicable to silicon chips and their computations is not applicable to human minds.
+
Only “On interpretation” and the “First Analytics” are relevant for logic in the strict sense.
This logic has been scolarised (etc)

p. 7
Up to the end of the Middle Ages, only three figures were being recognised, the first and fourth figure being grouped together.

REPLY:
YES.
p. 13 footnote (snipped)

IRRELEVANT disputes about letters. The idea is to distinguish positive and negative statements and varieties of SENTENTIAL OPPOSITION which are opposed as TRUE, vs. FALSE vs. INDEFINITE.

In the Middle Ages, the theory of the temporary operations has been developed. (Later) Kant gave in the Critique of Pure Reason his famous table of judgments from which Kant infers 12 categories.

COMMENT:
"Temporary Operations" probably should be translated as CONDITIONAL reasoning; Conditional or Contingent Reasoning = "modal logic";

IVO:
Crabbé seems here to be overlooking ... etc.

REPLY:
Crabbe isn't overlooking anything. You are confusing figures of syllogisms with syllogisms and Kant's terminology with enthymemes. In short you are taking another BLIND "shot in the dark" at Immanuel Kant, when he was writing prior to being awakened from his dogmatic slumbers by Hume, as argued in the next post.

Kevin

Ivo

Aug 25th, 2007 - 6:55 PM

Re: Enthymeme

Kevin said:
Well fill in one of my "backbones" in an actual square of logical opposition. Ivo drove against a car beCAUSE he had found out the truth (meaning CAUSE) of his missing hand. VS. Ivo did NOT drive against a car BECAUSE a drunk driver drove against him and was jailed for the offence. Which is it?
Ivo replies:
1.
I don't your get question.
Can questions of fact be determined/solved by the square?
2.
If so, that would make the task of courts very easy.
3.
And if so, how do you explain news items I will quote in section 6?
4.
Is the square the DNA of reality?
But if so, you still need the facts on you “do/apply the DNA/square-test”.
Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus. You need a res on which can apply the square/DNA
What is that thing (res)? Is that going to be provided by the square/DNA itself?
5.
“Da mihi facta, dabo tibi ius” Give me the facts. I’ll give the law.
Give me the facts and I’ll be able to apply the square
6.
The two news items
6.1
FOUR OUT OF FIVE CRIMES UNSOLVED
Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2006, 09:31 GMT 10:31 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/4988420.stm
Four out of five crimes committed in the Bristol area remain unsolved, according to figures released by Avon and Somerset Constabulary.
6.2.
FORCE REOPENS 'COLD CASE' CRIMES
Last Updated: Wednesday, 22 August 2007, 10:30 GMT 11:30 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/south_yorkshire/6958317.stm
DNA is being taken from samples and checked against a database
Files on unsolved crimes dating as far back as 1959 are to be reopened by police in South Yorkshire thanks to advances in DNA technology.

Ivo

Aug 25th, 2007 - 6:59 PM

Re: Enthymeme

Kevin,
I was not arguing that Crabbe was "guilty of" Enthymeme.

Kevin

Aug 25th, 2007 - 8:33 PM

Re: Enthymeme

IVO (writes):
Crabbé seems here to be overlooking that in his 1762 essay “The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Proved” (Die falsche etc.) Kant rejected the four syllogisms originating from the “medieval tradition” (Ivo: only the first and/or the fourth originate in Medieval tradition) as redundant.

REBUTTAL:
Crabbe clearly writes to you, Ivo, that the medievals only recognized 3 FIGURES of the syllogism. A 1st figure (originating with Aristotle) and indirect variants of that 1st figure (later termed the "4rth figure" in the Renaissance; but ALSO recognized by medieval logicians as "the indirect 1st"), a 2nd figure (originating with Aristotle) and a 3rd figure (originating with Aristotle).

Apparently Kant, as a young lecturer at Konigsberg, made a similar argument, in 1762, , to that of Maritain in the 1930's. His treatise is entitled The False SUBTLETY of the 4 syllogistic FIGURES Proved.

It appears that Kant argued that the "4rth figure" is a REDUNDANT 1st figure, although medievals and Maritain call the "4rth" an INDIRECT "1st".

Thus different terms, with arguably the SAME or almost the SAME meaning. It might be valid to argue against Kant that an indirect figure cannot be FALSE if it is valid. So "false subtlety" might be too harsh a criticism by Kant in arguing against the 4rth figure as a variant, differing from the 1st

There are valid criticisms of Kant's own "subtleties" in LOGIC. But your criticism, Ivo, isn't either true or valid, quote

IVO:
Kant rejected the four syllogisms originating from the “medieval tradition” (Ivo: only the first and/or the fourth originate in Medieval tradition).

REBUTTAL CONTINUED:
It is FALSE to say that "Kant rejected the four syllogisms..." because syllogistic figures are NOT syllogisms. A figure of a syllogism merely indicates where the middle term is located in the major and minor propositions. There are 4 possibilities for WHERE the middle term may be located in any 2 propositions, which are...

(1) THE MIDDLE TERM as Subject of the major premise and Predicate of the minor premise (1st figure)
(2) THE MIDDLE as the Predicate of both major and minor premises (2nd figure)
(3) THE MIDDLE as the Subject of both major and minor premises (3rd figure)
(4) THE MIDDLE as the Predicate of the major premise and subject of the minor premise (Indirect 1st figure or 4rth figure)

So, Ivo, you apparently do not know the difference between a SYLLOGISM and a FIGURE of a syllogism. Your next FALSE statement is:-

IVO:
Kant rejected the four syllogisms (1st false statement proved above) originating from the “medieval tradition” (FALSE)

NEXT REBUTTAL:
No logician, historian of LOGIC or philosopher writes that SYLLOGISTIC FIGURES or syllogism ORIGINATES in a "medieval tradition"! Everyone(except Ivo; in his "hatred" of Kant) KNOWS Aristotle's PRIOR ANALYTICS is where the theory of the syllogism "originated" with Aristotle's documentation of 3 SYLLOGISTIC FIGURES dependent upon where the middle term is located in the two propositions of syllogisms. Hence Ivo's second FALSE statement.

3RD REBUTTAL:
Recall IVO:
[Kant rejected the four syllogisms (FALSE) originating from the “medieval tradition” (FALSE)]...(Ivo: ONLY THE FIRST and/or THE FOURTH ORIGINATE in Medieval tradition).

ON THE CONTRARY:
The FIRST of 3 syllogistic figures ORIGINATES in Aristotle's PRIOR ANALYTICS. No one, except Ivo gives their ORIGINS to a "medieval tradition". In truth subjects and predicates originate in human speech. Aristotle named the 3 possibly valid figures of human speech (among Greek speakers), on his way to DEMONSTRATE which of those figures had VALID and which INVALID moods or "modes" when employed with the 3 figures he explicitly recognized.

The medievals picked up that "tradition" but explicitly recognized an INDIRECT 1st figure, which is WHY they gave Latin names to the MOODS of the "figure" (middle term as predicate of a major premise and subject of a minor premise) which results in stilted indirect speech, such as:- ARISTOTLE is a MAN (major), but EVERY MAN IS MORTAL (minor), therefore SOME MORTAL is ARISTOTLE.

That VALID SYLLOGISM seems identical to an equally valid 1st figure using the same premises CHANGED in their order of presentation, thus: Every MAN is mortal (middle = subject); Aristotle is a MAN (middle = predicate); Ergo Aristotle is mortal.

The "4th" originates with Galen (130-200) and becomes popular in the Renaissance. Once again, two FALSE statements by Ivo who doesn't know a syllogism from a figure of a syllogism.

Kevin

Ivo

Aug 26th, 2007 - 8:05 AM

Re: Enthymeme

Logical form […] is the basic structure, or the basic arrangement of the parts, of a complex logical unit. Now the categorical syllogism is a complex logical unit having as its parts (a) terms and (b) propositions in which these terms are affirmed or denied of one another. The logical form, then, of the categorical syllogism includes (a) the arrangement of the terms – which is called FIGURE – and (b) the arrangement of the propositions according to quality and quantity which is called mood.
(Andrew H. Bachhuber, S.J., “Introduction to Logic”, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957 p. 111)

Author	Comment
Ivo Aug 23, 07 - 1:42 AM	Enthymeme Kevin, 1. I do hereby TRY to reply to your replies in Re: Barbara http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/717387 2. I do confirm that the edition of Dr Mortimer J. Adler’s “Aristotle for everybody” I have is the first (A) Touchstone (Book) edition of 1997 copyright Mortimer J. Adler 1978 Yes, it also contains an Epilogue “For Those Who Read or Who Wish to Read Aristotle”. Thank You for drawing my attention to the fact that this may very well serve as an index. 3. I think this was you: You don't need Aristotle's LOGIC TREATISES because you won't understand them in your present state. You would profit more by Mortimer Jerome Adler's ARISTOTLE FOR EVERYBODY and by Dr. Adler's 10 PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKES written, respectively, for 14 year olds (Aristotle...) and adults (10 Philosophical Mistakes). As for LOGIC, you should get a copy of Hugh McCall's BASIC LOGIC, if you can't find a copy of Jacques Maritain's PETITE LOGIQUE (Formal/Minor LOGIC). I should not have lost this out of sight. 4. Here’s on top of p. 3 a nice picture of Aristotle’s square (it’s not in English but anybody should understand) Logique : la theorie formelle des syllogismes Marcel Crabbé http://www.lofs.ucl.ac.be/log/perso/Crabbe/textes/syllogismes.pdf Here’s Wikipedia in English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition also with square. Fr.wikipedia refers to Crabbé. Okay, now I understand what you’re trying to get at. Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Ivo Aug 23rd, 2007 - 1:45 AM	Re: Enthymeme 5. Let me try to translate some of what Crabbé is writing: p. 1 Traditions get lost. Logicians are no more interested in the theory of syllogism than chemists in alchemy. However, contrary to alchemy and other sciences which are said to be outdated, the formal theory of syllogisms is not wrong. It is only very limited and poor with regard to the development of contemporary logic. + Only “On interpretation” and the “First Analytics” are relevant for logic in the strict sense. This logic has been scolarised in the course of time and mainly during the Middle Ages. p. 7 Up to the end of the Middle Ages, only three figures were being recognised, the first and fourth figure being grouped together. p. 13 footnote AEOI propositions Some say that the letters AEIO originate in the Latin words Affirmo and nEgo. Others argue that these are simply the first four vowels of the Latin alphabet. p. 8 In the Middle Ages, the theory of the temporary operations has been developed. (Later) Kant gave in the Critique of Pure Reason his famous table of judgments from which Kant infers 12 categories. Crabbé seems here to be overlooking that in his 1762 essay “The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Proved” (Die falsche Spitzfindigkeit der vier syllogistischen Figuren erwiesen)”, Kant rejected the four syllogisms originating from the “medieval tradition” (Ivo: only the first and/or the fourth originate in Medieval tradition) as redundant http://www.philosophisches-lesen.de/kant/1762.htmlhttp://www.philosophisches-lesen.de/kant/1762.html Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Ivo Aug 23rd, 2007 - 1:49 AM	Re: Enthymeme 6. Let me now return to Adler’s chapter on “Logic’s Little Words” which in the Touchstone edition covers pp. 139 – 150. Let me just quote the meaning of final paragraph of the chapter as I understand it: The kind of compressed argument that omits or conceals indispensable premises, Aristotle called “enthymeme”. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme SNIP An enthymeme is an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. In a broader usage, the term "enthymeme" is sometimes used to describe an incomplete argument of forms other than the syllogism. Artistotle gave no complete definition of the Enthymeme in his Rhetoric, and its exact definition has been debated by scholars. I apologise for having been guilty of enthymeme by not answering your questions. I have been busy here http://forum.dinareconomy.com/viewtopic.php?t=16 Please note also that 1. your posts are sometimes very long and it’s not also easy to discern your questions 2. as you argue that, if we follow Kant, the bureaucrats of the National Socialist German government had to negate the orders of their superiors on the basis of categorical imperative (which can be formulated as ‘always consider a human being as a purpose not a means’), I asked you in my bureaucracy –post Aug 18, 07 - 3:28 PM http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/716975 , still in the hypothesis that we follow Kant, on what basis the categorical imperative is “superior” to the order of the superior (who, the latter, has also to take the categorical imperative into account). As Dr Adler says on p. 212 of “The Great Ideas”, the rules of good discussion are easy enough to state […]. And I [Adler] think they are just as easy to understand. But the hard thing to do, says Adler, is to follow them. That’s also applicable to both of us, I think. And certainly to me Ivo Cerckel Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Aug 25th, 2007 - 6:20 PM	Re: Enthymeme Kevin, 1. I do hereby TRY to reply to your replies in Re: Barbara http://pub13.bravenet.com/forum/1108592048/show/717387 REPLY: Nobody TRIES to do what they have already done. More correctly; I reply as follows... 2. I do confirm that the edition of Dr Mortimer J. Adler’s “Aristotle for everybody” I have is the first (A) Touchstone (Book) edition of 1997 copyright Mortimer J. Adler 1978 Yes, it also contains an EPILOGUE (etc.) 3. I think this was you: You don't need Aristotle's LOGIC (etc. snipped) I should not have lost this out of sight. REPLY: You mean:- I should not have lost sight of this post. But better, in English... I forgot. I failed to recall. etc. Nobody is perfect. There is an English expression symbolizing the phenomenon in a real enthymeme:- "Out of sight, Out of mind." That enthymeme requires an extended argument to either "justify" or "refute" the enthymeme. 4. Here’s on top of p. 3 a nice picture of Aristotle’s square Marcel Crabbé http://www.lofs.ucl.ac.be/log/perso/Crabbe/textes/syllogismes.pdf REPLY: The link gets one to the sight, but his documents don't open on my browzer. We have a nice picture of the backbone on this very site. Here’s Wikipedia in English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_of_opposition also with square. Fr.wikipedia refers to Crabbé. Okay, now I understand what you’re trying to get at. REPLY: Well fill in one of my "backbones" in an actual square of logical opposition. Ivo drove against a car beCAUSE he had found out the truth (meaning CAUSE) of his missing hand. VS. Ivo did NOT drive against a car BECAUSE a drunk driver drove against him and was jailed for the offence. Which is it? Consult any picture of a "square" BECAUSE you, now, KNOW what I am getting at. KB ------------------------------------------ Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Kevin Aug 25th, 2007 - 6:45 PM	Re: Enthymeme Re: Enthymeme 5. Let me try to translate some of what Crabbé is writing: REPLY: None of this is relevant to enthymemes. It is just a modern symbolic logician's OPINION that so-called "Aristotle's Logic" is not up to the standards of modern symbolic logic. The man obviously doesn't UNDERSTAND the purpose of THE CATEGORIES, which cover any kind of term that could ever be spoken or written in any language and introduced into either logically opposed propositions or reasoned arguments. Aristotle had a point to make about all of (1) terms, (propositions and syllogisms. In the short run of time the NEGATIVE proposition holds sway for purposes of refuting errors, for negative propositions require negative conclusions. But in the long run positive propositions expressing KNOWLEDGE hold sway. Refuting errors is part of progressing in knowledge. The syllogism may be used for either purpose. So, too, the law of thought or principle of non-contradiction. p. 1 Traditions get lost. Logicians are no more interested in the theory of syllogism than chemists in alchemy. COMMENT: Hence they don't know their own history as well as they ought to know it. A MODERN LOGICIAN: However, contrary to alchemy and other sciences which are said to be outdated, the formal theory of syllogisms is not wrong. It is only very limited and poor with regard to the development of contemporary logic. COMMENT: The reason he says the above is because MAJOR or material LOGIC which is entirely applicable to silicon chips and their computations is not applicable to human minds. + Only “On interpretation” and the “First Analytics” are relevant for logic in the strict sense. This logic has been scolarised (etc) p. 7 Up to the end of the Middle Ages, only three figures were being recognised, the first and fourth figure being grouped together. REPLY: YES. p. 13 footnote (snipped) IRRELEVANT disputes about letters. The idea is to distinguish positive and negative statements and varieties of SENTENTIAL OPPOSITION which are opposed as TRUE, vs. FALSE vs. INDEFINITE. In the Middle Ages, the theory of the temporary operations has been developed. (Later) Kant gave in the Critique of Pure Reason his famous table of judgments from which Kant infers 12 categories. COMMENT: "Temporary Operations" probably should be translated as CONDITIONAL reasoning; Conditional or Contingent Reasoning = "modal logic"; IVO: Crabbé seems here to be overlooking ... etc. REPLY: Crabbe isn't overlooking anything. You are confusing figures of syllogisms with syllogisms and Kant's terminology with enthymemes. In short you are taking another BLIND "shot in the dark" at Immanuel Kant, when he was writing prior to being awakened from his dogmatic slumbers by Hume, as argued in the next post. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Ivo Aug 25th, 2007 - 6:55 PM	Re: Enthymeme Kevin said: Well fill in one of my "backbones" in an actual square of logical opposition. Ivo drove against a car beCAUSE he had found out the truth (meaning CAUSE) of his missing hand. VS. Ivo did NOT drive against a car BECAUSE a drunk driver drove against him and was jailed for the offence. Which is it? Ivo replies: 1. I don't your get question. Can questions of fact be determined/solved by the square? 2. If so, that would make the task of courts very easy. 3. And if so, how do you explain news items I will quote in section 6? 4. Is the square the DNA of reality? But if so, you still need the facts on you “do/apply the DNA/square-test”. Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus. You need a res on which can apply the square/DNA What is that thing (res)? Is that going to be provided by the square/DNA itself? 5. “Da mihi facta, dabo tibi ius” Give me the facts. I’ll give the law. Give me the facts and I’ll be able to apply the square 6. The two news items 6.1 FOUR OUT OF FIVE CRIMES UNSOLVED Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 May 2006, 09:31 GMT 10:31 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/4988420.stm Four out of five crimes committed in the Bristol area remain unsolved, according to figures released by Avon and Somerset Constabulary. 6.2. FORCE REOPENS 'COLD CASE' CRIMES Last Updated: Wednesday, 22 August 2007, 10:30 GMT 11:30 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/south_yorkshire/6958317.stm DNA is being taken from samples and checked against a database Files on unsolved crimes dating as far back as 1959 are to be reopened by police in South Yorkshire thanks to advances in DNA technology. Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Ivo Aug 25th, 2007 - 6:59 PM	Re: Enthymeme Kevin, I was not arguing that Crabbe was "guilty of" Enthymeme. Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Aug 25th, 2007 - 8:33 PM	Re: Enthymeme IVO (writes): Crabbé seems here to be overlooking that in his 1762 essay “The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures Proved” (Die falsche etc.) Kant rejected the four syllogisms originating from the “medieval tradition” (Ivo: only the first and/or the fourth originate in Medieval tradition) as redundant. REBUTTAL: Crabbe clearly writes to you, Ivo, that the medievals only recognized 3 FIGURES of the syllogism. A 1st figure (originating with Aristotle) and indirect variants of that 1st figure (later termed the "4rth figure" in the Renaissance; but ALSO recognized by medieval logicians as "the indirect 1st"), a 2nd figure (originating with Aristotle) and a 3rd figure (originating with Aristotle). Apparently Kant, as a young lecturer at Konigsberg, made a similar argument, in 1762, , to that of Maritain in the 1930's. His treatise is entitled The False SUBTLETY of the 4 syllogistic FIGURES Proved. It appears that Kant argued that the "4rth figure" is a REDUNDANT 1st figure, although medievals and Maritain call the "4rth" an INDIRECT "1st". Thus different terms, with arguably the SAME or almost the SAME meaning. It might be valid to argue against Kant that an indirect figure cannot be FALSE if it is valid. So "false subtlety" might be too harsh a criticism by Kant in arguing against the 4rth figure as a variant, differing from the 1st There are valid criticisms of Kant's own "subtleties" in LOGIC. But your criticism, Ivo, isn't either true or valid, quote IVO: Kant rejected the four syllogisms originating from the “medieval tradition” (Ivo: only the first and/or the fourth originate in Medieval tradition). REBUTTAL CONTINUED: It is FALSE to say that "Kant rejected the four syllogisms..." because syllogistic figures are NOT syllogisms. A figure of a syllogism merely indicates where the middle term is located in the major and minor propositions. There are 4 possibilities for WHERE the middle term may be located in any 2 propositions, which are... (1) THE MIDDLE TERM as Subject of the major premise and Predicate of the minor premise (1st figure) (2) THE MIDDLE as the Predicate of both major and minor premises (2nd figure) (3) THE MIDDLE as the Subject of both major and minor premises (3rd figure) (4) THE MIDDLE as the Predicate of the major premise and subject of the minor premise (Indirect 1st figure or 4rth figure) So, Ivo, you apparently do not know the difference between a SYLLOGISM and a FIGURE of a syllogism. Your next FALSE statement is:- IVO: Kant rejected the four syllogisms (1st false statement proved above) originating from the “medieval tradition” (FALSE) NEXT REBUTTAL: No logician, historian of LOGIC or philosopher writes that SYLLOGISTIC FIGURES or syllogism ORIGINATES in a "medieval tradition"! Everyone(except Ivo; in his "hatred" of Kant) KNOWS Aristotle's PRIOR ANALYTICS is where the theory of the syllogism "originated" with Aristotle's documentation of 3 SYLLOGISTIC FIGURES dependent upon where the middle term is located in the two propositions of syllogisms. Hence Ivo's second FALSE statement. 3RD REBUTTAL: Recall IVO: [Kant rejected the four syllogisms (FALSE) originating from the “medieval tradition” (FALSE)]...(Ivo: ONLY THE FIRST and/or THE FOURTH ORIGINATE in Medieval tradition). ON THE CONTRARY: The FIRST of 3 syllogistic figures ORIGINATES in Aristotle's PRIOR ANALYTICS. No one, except Ivo gives their ORIGINS to a "medieval tradition". In truth subjects and predicates originate in human speech. Aristotle named the 3 possibly valid figures of human speech (among Greek speakers), on his way to DEMONSTRATE which of those figures had VALID and which INVALID moods or "modes" when employed with the 3 figures he explicitly recognized. The medievals picked up that "tradition" but explicitly recognized an INDIRECT 1st figure, which is WHY they gave Latin names to the MOODS of the "figure" (middle term as predicate of a major premise and subject of a minor premise) which results in stilted indirect speech, such as:- ARISTOTLE is a MAN (major), but EVERY MAN IS MORTAL (minor), therefore SOME MORTAL is ARISTOTLE. That VALID SYLLOGISM seems identical to an equally valid 1st figure using the same premises CHANGED in their order of presentation, thus: Every MAN is mortal (middle = subject); Aristotle is a MAN (middle = predicate); Ergo Aristotle is mortal. The "4th" originates with Galen (130-200) and becomes popular in the Renaissance. Once again, two FALSE statements by Ivo who doesn't know a syllogism from a figure of a syllogism. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Ivo Aug 26th, 2007 - 8:05 AM	Re: Enthymeme Logical form […] is the basic structure, or the basic arrangement of the parts, of a complex logical unit. Now the categorical syllogism is a complex logical unit having as its parts (a) terms and (b) propositions in which these terms are affirmed or denied of one another. The logical form, then, of the categorical syllogism includes (a) the arrangement of the terms – which is called FIGURE – and (b) the arrangement of the propositions according to quality and quantity which is called mood. (Andrew H. Bachhuber, S.J., “Introduction to Logic”, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957 p. 111) Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws

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