عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
Suhrawardi claims that there can be no one-premissed syllogism, and he makes a reason for this. The issue of the current article is the genealogy of that claim and the logical evaluation of this reason. Our hypothesis is that, historically, the conflict over the possibility or impossibility of the one-premissed reasoning goes back to the Stoics: Chrysippus was the leader of the opposition; and the Antipater of Trasus was the leader of conservativism. This conflict by Alexander Aphrodisias came into the Prepatetic logic, and merged with Aristotle's Syllogistic, and, consequently, the stoical problem of "one-premissed reasoning" was confused with the Aristotelian question of "one-premissed syllogism." Ibn Sina is the source of the transmision of this issue from Alexander to Suhrawardi. Suhrawardi's argument, if he views the refusal of the one-premissed reasoning, is, of course, incorrect; but if he is to refuse the one-premissed syllogism, he can have a good deal of truth.