Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Logic, ancient
View through CrossRef
Western antiquity produced two great bodies of logical theory – those of Aristotle and the Stoics. Both aim to explain what distinguishes good arguments from bad. Both see that the best arguments are valid and that an argument’s validity depends on its form. For both, therefore, logic’s business is to identify the valid argument forms. Both theories do this by laying down a small number of basic argument forms – Aristotle’s ‘perfect syllogisms’, the Stoics’ ‘indemonstrables’ – and rigorously deriving other valid forms from them. Both theories also try – though in a less systematic manner – to classify the ways in which an argument can go wrong.
Here the similarities between these two logics end. Their most significant differences can be illustrated by comparing basic argument forms from each. The argument ‘Every swan is an animal and every animal is moving, so every swan is moving’ has the same form as the argument ‘Every musician is human and every human is a substance, so every musician is a substance’. The Aristotelian expression of this form is ‘A belongs to all B and B belongs to all C, so A belongs to all C’. In this form the letters ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ stand for any terms whatever, and ‘A belongs to all B’ replaces ‘Every B is an A’. This represents the Aristotelian approach. Compare it with the following. The argument ‘If it is day then it is light, it is day, so it is light’ has the same form as the argument ‘If Dion walks then Dion moves, Dion walks, so Dion moves’. This form is expressed by the Stoics as ‘If the first then the second, the first, so the second’. Here the expressions ‘the first’ and ‘the second’ stand for any declarative sentences whatever.
In both cases, the validity of the argument form is tantamount to the validity of all arguments having that form (though the Stoics, unlike Aristotle, require that the precise words used in an argument should recur in its form). But the Aristotelian argument form is different in kind from the Stoic one: while it abstracts from terms, the Stoic form abstracts from sentences. Aristotelian logic is a term logic, Stoic logic a sentential one.
Title: Logic, ancient
Description:
Western antiquity produced two great bodies of logical theory – those of Aristotle and the Stoics.
Both aim to explain what distinguishes good arguments from bad.
Both see that the best arguments are valid and that an argument’s validity depends on its form.
For both, therefore, logic’s business is to identify the valid argument forms.
Both theories do this by laying down a small number of basic argument forms – Aristotle’s ‘perfect syllogisms’, the Stoics’ ‘indemonstrables’ – and rigorously deriving other valid forms from them.
Both theories also try – though in a less systematic manner – to classify the ways in which an argument can go wrong.
Here the similarities between these two logics end.
Their most significant differences can be illustrated by comparing basic argument forms from each.
The argument ‘Every swan is an animal and every animal is moving, so every swan is moving’ has the same form as the argument ‘Every musician is human and every human is a substance, so every musician is a substance’.
The Aristotelian expression of this form is ‘A belongs to all B and B belongs to all C, so A belongs to all C’.
In this form the letters ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ stand for any terms whatever, and ‘A belongs to all B’ replaces ‘Every B is an A’.
This represents the Aristotelian approach.
Compare it with the following.
The argument ‘If it is day then it is light, it is day, so it is light’ has the same form as the argument ‘If Dion walks then Dion moves, Dion walks, so Dion moves’.
This form is expressed by the Stoics as ‘If the first then the second, the first, so the second’.
Here the expressions ‘the first’ and ‘the second’ stand for any declarative sentences whatever.
In both cases, the validity of the argument form is tantamount to the validity of all arguments having that form (though the Stoics, unlike Aristotle, require that the precise words used in an argument should recur in its form).
But the Aristotelian argument form is different in kind from the Stoic one: while it abstracts from terms, the Stoic form abstracts from sentences.
Aristotelian logic is a term logic, Stoic logic a sentential one.
Related Results
Greek and Roman Logic
Greek and Roman Logic
In ancient philosophy, there is no discipline called “logic” in the contemporary sense of “the study of formally valid arguments.” Rather, once a subfield of philosophy comes to be...
Rationality and Logic
Rationality and Logic
An argument that logic is intrinsically psychological and human psychology is intrinsically logical, and that the connection between human rationality and logic is both constitutiv...
A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic
A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic
In the 1980s, Pollock’s work on default reasons started the quest in the AI community for a formal system of defeasible argumentation. The main goal of this paper is to provide a l...
Magnetization dynamics in ferromagnetic coupling interconnect wire using multiferroic logic scheme
Magnetization dynamics in ferromagnetic coupling interconnect wire using multiferroic logic scheme
Nowadays, the intense research effort is focused on exploring alternative emerging device to perform binary logical function. A promising device technology is multiferroic nanomagn...
Simulation of load‐current‐controlled gaas logic circuits
Simulation of load‐current‐controlled gaas logic circuits
AbstractSince the mobility of the hole is low in GaAs, P‐channel MESFET is of low speed. This makes it difficult to utilize the feature of the complementary logic circuit. Conseque...
Sample logic
Sample logic
Abstract
The need for a ‘many-valued logic’ in linguistics has been evident since the 1970s, but there was lack of clarity as to whether it should come from the fami...
Tinjauan Mendalam Terhadap Peran Logika Dalam Pemikiran Dan Penalaran Manusia
Tinjauan Mendalam Terhadap Peran Logika Dalam Pemikiran Dan Penalaran Manusia
Logic is an important foundation in human thinking and reasoning. In this review, we will examine the role of logic in the context of human thought, both in everyday life and in sc...
Ibn Taymiyyah’s Criticism of the Aristotelian Logic
Ibn Taymiyyah’s Criticism of the Aristotelian Logic
Ibn Taymiyyah’s Criticism of the Aristotelian LogicrnIn his book al-Radd ‘ala al-Mantiqiyyin (Refutation of the Greek Logicians), Ibn Taymiyyah focuses on three main issues: logica...

