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
MECHANISMS OF SCHEMATIC MODELING BASED ON VECTOR LOGIC
MECHANISMS OF SCHEMATIC MODELING BASED ON VECTOR LOGIC
Context. This paper addresses issues relevant to the EDA market – reducing the cost and time of testing and verification of digital projects by synthesizing the logic vector of a d...
Logic in the early 20th century
Logic in the early 20th century
The creation of modern logic is one of the most stunning achievements of mathematics and philosophy in the twentieth century. Modern logic – sometimes called logistic, symbolic log...
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...
Memristor-Based Priority Encoder and Decoder Circuit
Memristor-Based Priority Encoder and Decoder Circuit
Introduction:
Memristors, recognized as the fourth fundamental circuit element, exhibit unique features
such as non-volatility, scalability, and energy efficien...
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...
Predicate calculus
Predicate calculus
The predicate calculus is the dominant system of modern logic, having displaced the traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic that had been the previous paradigm. Like Aristotle’s...
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...

