Logical Studies

Abstract Some logicians earlier logicians, especially as long as the correlation provided or paid for. And even an independent treatises have been written on the subject. In contrast, others argue considered useless or less useful. Unfortunately, this issue has been raised in later works or abbreviated or omitted entirely. In many ways, provided the correlation is important in this debate as well as an understanding of the views of Muslim logicians was provided in the case and the arguments of the vote in comparison with the views of other ill-judged logicians. In this paper, counting and how to explain and prove they are connected Tlazmhay cases in the works presented logicians The review examines these issues, using the coding categories to see if there are other cases of correlation.

Abstract According to Modal Meinongianism, whatever is intendable is an object and existence is an ordinary property. There are two different approaches to Modal Meinongianism, in vitue of whether the objecthood of an object is dependent on behaviors or thoughts of cognitive agents or not: (1) the realist approach, according to which, fictional objects belong to the domain of object and have their properties independent of whether they are intended or not. (2) Anti-realist approach, according to which, fictional objects belong to the domain of object only if they are intended. Otherwise they are not object and thus no properties are ascribed to them. In this essay we will raise some objections to Priest’s anti-realist Modal Meinongianism, and then we propose a different anti-realist approach. In our account of anti-realist Modal Meinongianism fictional objects are considered as incomplete objects.

Abstract The verse 81 of Zokhrof says: "If God has a child, so I am the first of worshipers." Most of the interpretators believes that this verse contains an argument which can be expressed in a modes tollens form. But despite their attempt to proposal the form of this argument as they claim, no one of their formulized arguments do not match the verse and cannot keep the truth and validity. The difficulty of interpretation of this verse and the variety and difference of it is undoubtedly rooted from the word "first" (which can be interpreted in different meaning which none of them can support the validity of a modes tollens). In this research, after studying these proposal formulations according to modes tollens, a fortiori argument will be proposed and it is claimed that this form of argument, with an extra term, can better shows the content of the verse.

Abstract In this paper, Avicenna’s disjunctive propositions are treated from multiple aspects. In the first section of this paper, disjunction propositions are considered in Shifā, and it shown that there are differences between Avicenna’s and later interpretations, e.g Rāzī interpretation, in this point. In the next section, two general interpretations about Avicenna’s disjunctive propositions are studied and we reveal deficiencies of them. Based on “Confilict” concept as the main core of Avicenna’s view on disjunction propositions, this paper specifies Relevent-Modal interpretation more precise than others but it doesn’t precisely coincide with Avicenna’s view. Finally an alternative interpretation is suggested with respect to Stopper view on Stoic conditional and we show that this interpretation also has deficiency but it formulates Avicenna’s disjunctive propostions better than others.

Abstract Some philosophers of language believe some sentences despite of their predicative structure, haven’t ability of truth and falsity, because the speaker don’t means by these sentences describing the reality but means doing an action. These sentences are named speech acts. Before of philosophers of language, the muslims logicians regard to this point. They called these sentences by "pseudo-predication composition". Pseudo-predication composition was proposed in several problems. The first field of this innovation was the critique of the criteria of ability of truth or falsity of predicative sentences and the solving of liar paradox. Although the problem of speech act wasn’t developed in logic of Islamic period but the muslims logicians were discovered it. The study of muslims logicians' viewpoints about speech acts and comparing it with viewpoint of philosophers of language is very useful.

Abstract Though going back to Aristotle and porphyre Tyrien,the matter of the four relstions between two concepts, as a distinctive division, is one of the most important innovations in Arabic logic. This devision, for the first time, appeared in Farabi, Ghazali, Razi, and Khunaji in different forms. The devisions of the first three sufferred respectively from the fallacies of ‘non-coherency’, ‘non-exclusivity’ and ‘overlap of the sub-classes of the division’, so the later Arabic logicians didn’t accept them; thus Khunaji’s devision, laking all the fallecies, found its way to the pedagogical books and and established itself in Arabic logic up today. Although it has encountered important paradoxes from the very outset, it could resist all of them and reach its today firmed and established position in Arabic logic. In this paper, we explore the background of the four relations and determine each logician’s contribution in developing the subject.