morteza mezginejad
Abstract
Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā's) discusses in detail the modality and modal syllogistic, in his logical books. The earliest formal system of modal logic was developed by Avicenna, who ultimately developed a theory of "temporally modal" syllogistic. However, referring to his works, there is a kind of ambiguity ...
Read More
Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā's) discusses in detail the modality and modal syllogistic, in his logical books. The earliest formal system of modal logic was developed by Avicenna, who ultimately developed a theory of "temporally modal" syllogistic. However, referring to his works, there is a kind of ambiguity in the meaning of narrowest possibility. Some Western logicians have also reported such ambiguity, sometimes leading to misunderstandings. Therefore, knowing the exact meaning of the narrowest possibility from Avicenna's perspective is important. In the book of Healing (Kitāb al-Shifā, Kitāb al-Burhan), it becomes clear that his definition of the narrowest possibility is the same as the definition of a future possibility. In the book of Oriental logic (Mantiq Al-Mashriqiyin) and the book of Pointers (Al-Isharat wa’l-Tanbihat), the narrowest possibility and future possibility are defined separately, but the definitions provided do not completely coincide. Two strategies will be proposed to resolve this ambiguity. Finally, it seems that there is no real distinction between the narrowest possibility and future possibility.
morteza mezginejad; fatemeh Baghery nejad
Volume 9, Issue 1 , October 2018, , Pages 183-225
Abstract
Aristotle commences controversial debate with introducing three figures of syllogism. Then, the fourth figure was added to syllogism. In contrast to the other three figures which have a few discuses, the fourth figure has a lot of discussion and disagreements about conclusion conditions. Three controversial ...
Read More
Aristotle commences controversial debate with introducing three figures of syllogism. Then, the fourth figure was added to syllogism. In contrast to the other three figures which have a few discuses, the fourth figure has a lot of discussion and disagreements about conclusion conditions. Three controversial difference can be seen in this figure: (1)The worth of it (2) The conclusion conditions (3) the valid types of fourth figure. Some logician Before Athir al-Din al-Abhari (from Ibn Salah Hamedani to Afzal al-Din Khaneji), which are called antecedents accepted five valid types of the fourth figure under specific conditions and some logicians after him accepted eight valid types. It is worth mentioning that Abhari in some circumstances added three valid types to the five accepted types of fourth figure. Some of logicians after him (Taftazani, Hajj Molla Hadi Sabzavari) accepted eight types without any attention to these circumstances. We investigate the background of the fourth figure and its conditions. After approving the primary idea, we concentrate on the rootes of this mistake and show that the misunderstanding about Abhari’s phrases was caused the expansion of his idea in modality syllogism to syllogism in general.
Analytical Philosophy
Morteza Mezginejad; Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati
Volume 7, Issue 2 , December 2016, , Pages 97-116
Abstract
The main purpose of this article is the Horwich arguments in "Meaning, use and truth ", which is published in the Mind journal (1995). In this article, he defends the idea of Wittgenstein, use theory, in contrast to the arguments raised against the approach. Horwich focus specifically on Kripke's criticism. ...
Read More
The main purpose of this article is the Horwich arguments in "Meaning, use and truth ", which is published in the Mind journal (1995). In this article, he defends the idea of Wittgenstein, use theory, in contrast to the arguments raised against the approach. Horwich focus specifically on Kripke's criticism. Kripke in his famous article "Wittgenstein on rules and private language: An elementary exposition " is trying to show that the application cannot provide the meaning. Horwich refuse Kripke argument. For this purpose, he offers both strong and weak interpretation of the premises of Kripke argument and then criticizes both. After review Horwich Criticisms on Kripke we evaluate his criticisms.
Morteza Mazginejad; Lotfollah Nabavi; Seyed Mohammad Hojati
Volume 6, Issue 1 , March 2015, , Pages 117-141
Abstract
Gentzen divides rules of logical system into ‘operational rules’ and ‘structural rules’. By operational rules she means the rules of introduction and elimination of a logical constant. Structural rules represent the fundamental (structural) characteristics of an argument ...
Read More
Gentzen divides rules of logical system into ‘operational rules’ and ‘structural rules’. By operational rules she means the rules of introduction and elimination of a logical constant. Structural rules represent the fundamental (structural) characteristics of an argument in such a way that any change in them causes changing in the whole system. In his works, Gentzen mentions that the meaning of logical constants can be achieved only through operational rules. This point is the infrastructure of inferentialism approach on meaningfulness of logical constants. Christopher Peacocke criticizes the basis of inferentialism approach. He believes that all structural and operational rules should be considered as the definition of logical constants. In response to this claim, Ian Hacking argued that accepting Peacock’s idea, will lead to a lack of conservation. Lack of conservation causes system incompatibility. In this paper, after careful examination of structural rules and expressing its difference with operational rules, Hacking argument will be evaluated and criticized and finally a solution to the problem will be presented.
