Hamed Bastin
Volume 4, Issue 2 , September 2013, Pages 1-17
Abstract
One of the crucial problems concerning Aristotle's modal logic is the incompatibility of his claims about the necessity and his teachings in the case of absolute syllogism. This problem has led to many controversies since Aristotle time, and most researchers have come to the conclusion that Aristotle’s ...
Read More
One of the crucial problems concerning Aristotle's modal logic is the incompatibility of his claims about the necessity and his teachings in the case of absolute syllogism. This problem has led to many controversies since Aristotle time, and most researchers have come to the conclusion that Aristotle’s modal logic is contradictory. This article attempts through a new reading, which is as compatible as possible with Aristotle's claims, and based on his works and also his closer interpreters’ works such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, explains transferring necessity from a necessary premise to the conclusion and shows how Aristotle's viewpoint makes our argument possible and sound.
Javad Beigi
Volume 4, Issue 2 , September 2013, Pages 18-41
Abstract
To have an applied attitude to Aristotelian logic it is necessary to understand deeply and correctly his syllogism and hence its figures. In this paper, we will discuss syllogism carefully in more details; one of the most important topics in syllogism is the valid and invalid moods, but the problem is ...
Read More
To have an applied attitude to Aristotelian logic it is necessary to understand deeply and correctly his syllogism and hence its figures. In this paper, we will discuss syllogism carefully in more details; one of the most important topics in syllogism is the valid and invalid moods, but the problem is that thinkers have not paid so much attention to invalid and sterile moods as they have paid to valid moods. Here we give an equal importance to these two kinds of moods, and will indicate their practical role in the Aristotelian logic.
Seyyed Mohammad Ali Hodjati; Salman Panahi
Volume 4, Issue 2 , September 2013, Pages 43-64
Abstract
Realism is an intuitive idea which most people accept explicitly or implicitly. It is hard to find someone who does not accept mind-independent things or the relation between truth and states of affairs; however, how the connection between language and reality can be stated is a controversial issue, ...
Read More
Realism is an intuitive idea which most people accept explicitly or implicitly. It is hard to find someone who does not accept mind-independent things or the relation between truth and states of affairs; however, how the connection between language and reality can be stated is a controversial issue, at least among philosophers. Based on the most popular theories about the problem, there is a direct correspondence between lingual elements and external world. At first glance, it seems acceptable, like many other intuitive ideas, but further examination reveals some dissatisfactions. Hilary Putnam, well known American contemporary philosopher, has criticized such a point of view (‘Metaphysical Realism’ as he has called), partly using model theoretic based arguments. Model theory is a branch of mathematical sciences which studies the connection between a language and its interpretations. This paper attempts, less technical and more intuitive, to examine Putnam's Permutation argument in which he uses model theoretic concepts and theorems to show that Metaphysical Realist is not able to fix reference of the elements of language via fixing truth value of the whole sentence in which those elements appear.
Gholam Reza Zakiani; Mohammad Amin Baradaran Nikou
Volume 4, Issue 2 , September 2013, Pages 65-93
Abstract
What Aristotle codified in Organon is not only the science of logic, but also the logic of science or methodology. Until now, Aristotle’s interpreters have agreed that the Theory of Demonstration and Syllogistic method have central role in the Aristotelian methodology, and the other parts of his ...
Read More
What Aristotle codified in Organon is not only the science of logic, but also the logic of science or methodology. Until now, Aristotle’s interpreters have agreed that the Theory of Demonstration and Syllogistic method have central role in the Aristotelian methodology, and the other parts of his logic, like Dialectic, are in shadow. But some contemporary thinkers such as Jaakko Hintikka show that in the Aristotle's methodology, the role of Dialectic is as crucial as the theory of syllogism. Hintikka, in the light of well-balanced look to the parts of Aristotle's logical system, shows the consistency and the harmony between the Organon’s method and Aristotle metaphysical problems, and also the prevailing methodology of his time. Furthermore, Hintikka demonstrates that this methodology is a result of Aristotle's theory of Cognitive Psychology.
Amir Hossein Zadyusefi; Davood Hosseini
Volume 4, Issue 2 , September 2013, Pages 95-112
Abstract
Among contemporary Islamic philosophers, Mesbah Yazdi has proposed a theory about primitive propositions. He claims, first, that primitive propositions are analytic and secondly that concepts they are made up of, are secondary philosophical concepts. Here, we first introduce his theory of primitive propositions ...
Read More
Among contemporary Islamic philosophers, Mesbah Yazdi has proposed a theory about primitive propositions. He claims, first, that primitive propositions are analytic and secondly that concepts they are made up of, are secondary philosophical concepts. Here, we first introduce his theory of primitive propositions and then give some counterexamples in order to show that this theory does not match with the classical characterization of primitive propositions. Some of these counterexamples are not analytic and others neither are analytic nor composed of secondary philosophical concepts. The upshot is that both Mesbah’s criteria for primitiveness are defective.
Mahdi Azimi
Volume 4, Issue 2 , September 2013, Pages 113-142
Abstract
Aristotle and Peripatetics used topoi as the strategies of debate, but Avicenna changed their function to the fallacies of definition. This is one of his outstanding innovations to which the modern scholars didn’t pay attention. This innovation, on one hand, is related to Avicenna’s logical ...
Read More
Aristotle and Peripatetics used topoi as the strategies of debate, but Avicenna changed their function to the fallacies of definition. This is one of his outstanding innovations to which the modern scholars didn’t pay attention. This innovation, on one hand, is related to Avicenna’s logical purposivism; and, on the other, to his bipartite logic. By the former, I mean his belief that the main purposes of logic are: 1. thinking validly and, 2. avoiding thinking invalidly, and any part of Aristotelian logic, not efficient for either of these, either should be eliminated (such as Rhetoric and Poetics) or its function should be changed (such as Dialectics). By the latter, I mean a new logical order by which Avicenna divided Aristotelian logic into two parts: (i) theory of definition and (ii) theory of inference. Now, if we put the mentioned innovation along with the Aristotelian thesis that ‘all sophistic refutations are syllogistic fallacies’, we obtain, in parallel with bipartite logical theory, a bipartite logical pathology, i.e. fallacies of definition and fallacies of inference.
