Aristotelian Syllogisms: Difference between revisions

From docs.reasonspace.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Aristotle went through all possible combinations of two premises and a conclusion that could be made with propositions of the form “All/Some A are/aren’t B” and figured out which were valid deductions. It turned out that all of the valid forms could be restated in terms of the four that we’ve already looked at. Why, in each of these cases, do the premises necessitate the conclusion? It is because one premise is a universal proposition saying something about everything of a certain sort and the other premise tells us that something else is that sort of thing. The conclusion then applies the universal premise about all things of the sort to the thing that the other premise tells us is a member of that sort. If the universal premise is really true, and the thing in question really belongs to the relevant sort, then the universal premise will, of course, have to apply to that thing.
Aristotle went through all possible combinations of two premises and a conclusion that could be made with propositions of the form “All/Some A are/aren’t B” and figured out which were valid deductions. He found that 14 of them were, and these were later given names by Medieval logicians. We can call these the Aristotelian Syllogisms. (Syllogism is the Greek word that Aristotle used for "deduction"; in English, it has come to refer to an argument with two premises and a conclusion.)
 
Aristotle also found that all of the 14 valid forms could be restated in terms of four, which he called "First Figure Syllogisms." They are listed below.
 
Why, in each of these cases, do the premises necessitate the conclusion? It is because one premise is a universal proposition saying something about everything of a certain sort and the other premise tells us that something else is that sort of thing. The conclusion then applies the universal premise about all things of the sort to the thing that the other premise tells us is a member of that sort. If the universal premise is really true, and the thing in question really belongs to the relevant sort, then the universal premise will, of course, have to apply to that thing.


=First Figure Syllogisms=
=First Figure Syllogisms=
Line 14: Line 18:
{{Map|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/9ea18ef3-9d6c-4d80-ae4e-7447ea4ee011}}
{{Map|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/9ea18ef3-9d6c-4d80-ae4e-7447ea4ee011}}


=Other=
=Second Figure Syllogisms=
 
==Cesare==
{{Map|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/eb48ef459a414deda929f3b459aa77ea}}
 
==Camestres==
{{Map|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/4bbc209b037d44a181abd05e7a8a8068}}
 
==Festino==
{{Map|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/311388472ad14a90b4017e60af953bd0}}


Though most deductive arguments involve the application of universal propositions to particular cases, not all do. Some, which were focused on by later Greek and Medieval logicians, involve the application of hypothetical statements to actual cases or the application of statements about alternative possibilities to cases in which some of the alternatives have been ruled out. Here are some examples:
==Baroco==
{| class="wikitable"
{{Map|https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/0df77d3e4cca468ab0d1e27abd6e1313}}
| Map 28-29:
|-
|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1478?token=41804760-1661-42e4-9c4c-c0628a7f964e https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1044/export?token=91c26439-f505-4042-a37c-ac44c9114b34&target=active&dpi=100&view=true&format=.png]
|}


{| class="wikitable"
=Third Figure Syllogisms=
| Map 30-31:
|-
|[https://app.reasonspace.com/maps/1478?token=41804760-1661-42e4-9c4c-c0628a7f964e https://app.reasonspace.com/arguments/1045/export?token=b0eb2c33-db22-4735-b11a-29e06170402e&target=active&dpi=100&view=true&format=.png]
|}

Revision as of 16:41, 30 August 2024

Aristotle went through all possible combinations of two premises and a conclusion that could be made with propositions of the form “All/Some A are/aren’t B” and figured out which were valid deductions. He found that 14 of them were, and these were later given names by Medieval logicians. We can call these the Aristotelian Syllogisms. (Syllogism is the Greek word that Aristotle used for "deduction"; in English, it has come to refer to an argument with two premises and a conclusion.)

Aristotle also found that all of the 14 valid forms could be restated in terms of four, which he called "First Figure Syllogisms." They are listed below.

Why, in each of these cases, do the premises necessitate the conclusion? It is because one premise is a universal proposition saying something about everything of a certain sort and the other premise tells us that something else is that sort of thing. The conclusion then applies the universal premise about all things of the sort to the thing that the other premise tells us is a member of that sort. If the universal premise is really true, and the thing in question really belongs to the relevant sort, then the universal premise will, of course, have to apply to that thing.

First Figure Syllogisms

Barbara

export?options%5Bembed%5D=true&options%5Bformat%5D=.png

Celarent

export?options%5Bembed%5D=true&options%5Bformat%5D=.png

Darii

export?options%5Bembed%5D=true&options%5Bformat%5D=.png

Ferio

export?options%5Bembed%5D=true&options%5Bformat%5D=.png

Second Figure Syllogisms

Cesare

export?options%5Bembed%5D=true&options%5Bformat%5D=.png

Camestres

export?options%5Bembed%5D=true&options%5Bformat%5D=.png

Festino

export?options%5Bembed%5D=true&options%5Bformat%5D=.png

Baroco

export?options%5Bembed%5D=true&options%5Bformat%5D=.png

Third Figure Syllogisms

Retrieved from "http://reasonspace.s432.sureserver.com/index.php?title=Aristotelian_Syllogisms&oldid=1133"