Document Type : Research

Author

• Katayoon Mehrabadi

Allameg Tabatabayi University

Abstract

The validity of any argument depends on its compatibility with logical rules. Some arguments have a form of proof; But they have some types of logical errors inside, that is, they are pseudo-arguments; not proof. Theological works, as texts that have seemingly logical and valid arguments, are worthy of evaluation in this regard. Therefore, logic provides a suitable scientific tool for validating them. In this research, three arguments from the book Kashf al-Mahjub are examined. This review is done both from the syntactic point of view, based on the first-order logic, and from the semantic point of view and deduction's materials. Finally, by specifying formal and semantic fallacies as well as determining the types of deductions of the arguments, it is shown that Hojwiri knew and mastered the principles of logic, and considered himself obliged to comply with its rules; But sometimes it has not been free from fallacies. It also turns out that his arguments are sometimes downgraded from argument to lecture.

Keywords

• First-order logic
• formalizing
• natural deduction
• Kashf al-Mahjub
• Hojwiri

Main Subjects

• Standard Mathematical Logic