Mixing
Is there any worth to reading Aristotle's works on logic (other than historical)?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
What I mean is that presumably a topic such as logic would have, at this point, been so advanced that the ancestral works are unnecessary.
I would read it for pleasure, but have they been ultimately rendered obsolete?
logic aristotle
asked 6 hours ago
Sermo
363
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
What I mean is that presumably a topic such as logic would have, at this point, been so advanced that the ancestral works are unnecessary.
I would read it for pleasure, but have they been ultimately rendered obsolete?
logic aristotle
asked 6 hours ago
Sermo
363
1
"Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
– Conifold
2 hours ago
It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
– virmaior
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
What I mean is that presumably a topic such as logic would have, at this point, been so advanced that the ancestral works are unnecessary.
I would read it for pleasure, but have they been ultimately rendered obsolete?
logic aristotle
asked 6 hours ago
Sermo
363
What I mean is that presumably a topic such as logic would have, at this point, been so advanced that the ancestral works are unnecessary.
I would read it for pleasure, but have they been ultimately rendered obsolete?
logic aristotle
logic aristotle
asked 6 hours ago
Sermo
363
asked 6 hours ago
Sermo
363
asked 6 hours ago
Sermo
363
asked 6 hours ago
Sermo
363
asked 6 hours ago
Sermo
363
363
1
"Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
– Conifold
2 hours ago
It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
– virmaior
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1
"Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
– Conifold
2 hours ago
It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
– virmaior
1 hour ago
1
1
"Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
– Conifold
2 hours ago
"Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
– Conifold
2 hours ago
It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
– virmaior
1 hour ago
It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
– virmaior
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
No, Aristotle's logic has not been rendered obsolete or disproved.
See, for example:
Ã…Âukasiewicz, Jan. 1957. Aristotle's syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
&
Thomas Greenwood. “The Unity of Logic,†Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 8 (January 1, 1945): 457–470.
from this answer to the question "Can all mathematical reasoning be translated into traditional logic?"Eyal Mozes, “A Deductive Database Based on Aristotelian Logic,†Journal of Symbolic Computation 7, no. 5 (May 1, 1989): 487–507.
from this question
answered 4 hours ago
Geremia
3,88911125
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Logic means something different now than what it once did. In classical philosophy one primary branch of philosophy investigated the cosmos, one investigated human life, and a third investigated the forms of reasoning used in the other two: physikē, ethikē, logikē (See Diog. Laert. for variants on this schema.)
When an older writer (or a modern classicist) refers to Aristotle's "Logic" they mean the entire Organon, the first five books of the Aristotelian corpus. These are, in effect, Aristotle's philosophy itself!
Now, since Frege (roughly) there has been an increasing trend to use "logic" to refer to something like predicate logic or propositional logic: in Aristotle this would correspond to his theory of the syllogism (which is summarized here and there but most extensive in the Analytics). Three thoughts:
(1) Yes, in a sense the syllogism is something like a primitive version of set theory so most people interested in math and philosophy aren't going to find Aristotle's syllogism-theory a huge revelation.
(2) However, it isn't the "inner content" of syllogistic inferences Aristotle focuses on - the actual focus is on how syllogisms relate to things that are not syllogisms, including the subjects and predicates they take as arguments, fields of knowledge where syllogistic deductions are valid, licit non-deductive arguments, and illicit deductive fallacies.
(3) All of this machinery is necessary to understand any of the larger issues of Aristotle's physics and ethics - including what subjects are "sciences" (i.e., use deductive inference) - and also the narrower problem of how to interpret difficult passages.
So the problem isn't really that if you don't understand syllogistic logic, you won't understand how to make a deductive inference; the problem is that if you don't understand how Aristotle's theory of the syllogism fits in with Aristotle's theory of the proposition, Aristotle's ontology, etc. (the "Logic") most of the rest of Aristotle will fly over your head. I've done it both ways and Aristotle definitely makes more sense after you've read the Organon.
(And the same goes for many later philosophers who liberally borrow Aristotle's terminology and assumptions even when they profess to be attacking him. See the essay "Aristotle as cuttlefish" for one of the funnier illustrations; historians of philosophical grammar [Itkonen, Padley] are particularly good at documenting this conceptual debt. So the same point applies even to say, Kant; a lot of the terminology and preoccupations will make no sense if you aren't familiar with Aristotle. In fact Kant is a particularly good example; "apodictic certainty" is difficult to define but easily understood once you understand that apodexein = "to demonstrate" [by syllogism], in Aristotle's sense.)
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
411
New contributor
guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Aristotle's Rhetoric was fun to read... it isn't long, and it offers a "classical" perspective on what makes a convincing (not just correct) argument. This was the work that introduced me to the notion of a slight, which, as it turns out, is a very powerful notion indeed.
answered 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,20817
Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
No, Aristotle's logic has not been rendered obsolete or disproved.
See, for example:
Ã…Âukasiewicz, Jan. 1957. Aristotle's syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
&
Thomas Greenwood. “The Unity of Logic,†Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 8 (January 1, 1945): 457–470.
from this answer to the question "Can all mathematical reasoning be translated into traditional logic?"Eyal Mozes, “A Deductive Database Based on Aristotelian Logic,†Journal of Symbolic Computation 7, no. 5 (May 1, 1989): 487–507.
from this question
answered 4 hours ago
Geremia
3,88911125
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
No, Aristotle's logic has not been rendered obsolete or disproved.
See, for example:
Ã…Âukasiewicz, Jan. 1957. Aristotle's syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
&
Thomas Greenwood. “The Unity of Logic,†Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 8 (January 1, 1945): 457–470.
from this answer to the question "Can all mathematical reasoning be translated into traditional logic?"Eyal Mozes, “A Deductive Database Based on Aristotelian Logic,†Journal of Symbolic Computation 7, no. 5 (May 1, 1989): 487–507.
from this question
answered 4 hours ago
Geremia
3,88911125
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
No, Aristotle's logic has not been rendered obsolete or disproved.
See, for example:
Ã…Âukasiewicz, Jan. 1957. Aristotle's syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
&
Thomas Greenwood. “The Unity of Logic,†Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 8 (January 1, 1945): 457–470.
from this answer to the question "Can all mathematical reasoning be translated into traditional logic?"Eyal Mozes, “A Deductive Database Based on Aristotelian Logic,†Journal of Symbolic Computation 7, no. 5 (May 1, 1989): 487–507.
from this question
answered 4 hours ago
Geremia
3,88911125
No, Aristotle's logic has not been rendered obsolete or disproved.
See, for example:
Ã…Âukasiewicz, Jan. 1957. Aristotle's syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
&
Thomas Greenwood. “The Unity of Logic,†Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 8 (January 1, 1945): 457–470.
from this answer to the question "Can all mathematical reasoning be translated into traditional logic?"Eyal Mozes, “A Deductive Database Based on Aristotelian Logic,†Journal of Symbolic Computation 7, no. 5 (May 1, 1989): 487–507.
from this question
answered 4 hours ago
Geremia
3,88911125
answered 4 hours ago
Geremia
3,88911125
answered 4 hours ago
Geremia
3,88911125
answered 4 hours ago
Geremia
3,88911125
3,88911125
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Logic means something different now than what it once did. In classical philosophy one primary branch of philosophy investigated the cosmos, one investigated human life, and a third investigated the forms of reasoning used in the other two: physikē, ethikē, logikē (See Diog. Laert. for variants on this schema.)
When an older writer (or a modern classicist) refers to Aristotle's "Logic" they mean the entire Organon, the first five books of the Aristotelian corpus. These are, in effect, Aristotle's philosophy itself!
Now, since Frege (roughly) there has been an increasing trend to use "logic" to refer to something like predicate logic or propositional logic: in Aristotle this would correspond to his theory of the syllogism (which is summarized here and there but most extensive in the Analytics). Three thoughts:
(1) Yes, in a sense the syllogism is something like a primitive version of set theory so most people interested in math and philosophy aren't going to find Aristotle's syllogism-theory a huge revelation.
(2) However, it isn't the "inner content" of syllogistic inferences Aristotle focuses on - the actual focus is on how syllogisms relate to things that are not syllogisms, including the subjects and predicates they take as arguments, fields of knowledge where syllogistic deductions are valid, licit non-deductive arguments, and illicit deductive fallacies.
(3) All of this machinery is necessary to understand any of the larger issues of Aristotle's physics and ethics - including what subjects are "sciences" (i.e., use deductive inference) - and also the narrower problem of how to interpret difficult passages.
So the problem isn't really that if you don't understand syllogistic logic, you won't understand how to make a deductive inference; the problem is that if you don't understand how Aristotle's theory of the syllogism fits in with Aristotle's theory of the proposition, Aristotle's ontology, etc. (the "Logic") most of the rest of Aristotle will fly over your head. I've done it both ways and Aristotle definitely makes more sense after you've read the Organon.
(And the same goes for many later philosophers who liberally borrow Aristotle's terminology and assumptions even when they profess to be attacking him. See the essay "Aristotle as cuttlefish" for one of the funnier illustrations; historians of philosophical grammar [Itkonen, Padley] are particularly good at documenting this conceptual debt. So the same point applies even to say, Kant; a lot of the terminology and preoccupations will make no sense if you aren't familiar with Aristotle. In fact Kant is a particularly good example; "apodictic certainty" is difficult to define but easily understood once you understand that apodexein = "to demonstrate" [by syllogism], in Aristotle's sense.)
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
411
New contributor
guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Logic means something different now than what it once did. In classical philosophy one primary branch of philosophy investigated the cosmos, one investigated human life, and a third investigated the forms of reasoning used in the other two: physikē, ethikē, logikē (See Diog. Laert. for variants on this schema.)
When an older writer (or a modern classicist) refers to Aristotle's "Logic" they mean the entire Organon, the first five books of the Aristotelian corpus. These are, in effect, Aristotle's philosophy itself!
Now, since Frege (roughly) there has been an increasing trend to use "logic" to refer to something like predicate logic or propositional logic: in Aristotle this would correspond to his theory of the syllogism (which is summarized here and there but most extensive in the Analytics). Three thoughts:
(1) Yes, in a sense the syllogism is something like a primitive version of set theory so most people interested in math and philosophy aren't going to find Aristotle's syllogism-theory a huge revelation.
(2) However, it isn't the "inner content" of syllogistic inferences Aristotle focuses on - the actual focus is on how syllogisms relate to things that are not syllogisms, including the subjects and predicates they take as arguments, fields of knowledge where syllogistic deductions are valid, licit non-deductive arguments, and illicit deductive fallacies.
(3) All of this machinery is necessary to understand any of the larger issues of Aristotle's physics and ethics - including what subjects are "sciences" (i.e., use deductive inference) - and also the narrower problem of how to interpret difficult passages.
So the problem isn't really that if you don't understand syllogistic logic, you won't understand how to make a deductive inference; the problem is that if you don't understand how Aristotle's theory of the syllogism fits in with Aristotle's theory of the proposition, Aristotle's ontology, etc. (the "Logic") most of the rest of Aristotle will fly over your head. I've done it both ways and Aristotle definitely makes more sense after you've read the Organon.
(And the same goes for many later philosophers who liberally borrow Aristotle's terminology and assumptions even when they profess to be attacking him. See the essay "Aristotle as cuttlefish" for one of the funnier illustrations; historians of philosophical grammar [Itkonen, Padley] are particularly good at documenting this conceptual debt. So the same point applies even to say, Kant; a lot of the terminology and preoccupations will make no sense if you aren't familiar with Aristotle. In fact Kant is a particularly good example; "apodictic certainty" is difficult to define but easily understood once you understand that apodexein = "to demonstrate" [by syllogism], in Aristotle's sense.)
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
411
New contributor
guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Logic means something different now than what it once did. In classical philosophy one primary branch of philosophy investigated the cosmos, one investigated human life, and a third investigated the forms of reasoning used in the other two: physikē, ethikē, logikē (See Diog. Laert. for variants on this schema.)
When an older writer (or a modern classicist) refers to Aristotle's "Logic" they mean the entire Organon, the first five books of the Aristotelian corpus. These are, in effect, Aristotle's philosophy itself!
Now, since Frege (roughly) there has been an increasing trend to use "logic" to refer to something like predicate logic or propositional logic: in Aristotle this would correspond to his theory of the syllogism (which is summarized here and there but most extensive in the Analytics). Three thoughts:
(1) Yes, in a sense the syllogism is something like a primitive version of set theory so most people interested in math and philosophy aren't going to find Aristotle's syllogism-theory a huge revelation.
(2) However, it isn't the "inner content" of syllogistic inferences Aristotle focuses on - the actual focus is on how syllogisms relate to things that are not syllogisms, including the subjects and predicates they take as arguments, fields of knowledge where syllogistic deductions are valid, licit non-deductive arguments, and illicit deductive fallacies.
(3) All of this machinery is necessary to understand any of the larger issues of Aristotle's physics and ethics - including what subjects are "sciences" (i.e., use deductive inference) - and also the narrower problem of how to interpret difficult passages.
So the problem isn't really that if you don't understand syllogistic logic, you won't understand how to make a deductive inference; the problem is that if you don't understand how Aristotle's theory of the syllogism fits in with Aristotle's theory of the proposition, Aristotle's ontology, etc. (the "Logic") most of the rest of Aristotle will fly over your head. I've done it both ways and Aristotle definitely makes more sense after you've read the Organon.
(And the same goes for many later philosophers who liberally borrow Aristotle's terminology and assumptions even when they profess to be attacking him. See the essay "Aristotle as cuttlefish" for one of the funnier illustrations; historians of philosophical grammar [Itkonen, Padley] are particularly good at documenting this conceptual debt. So the same point applies even to say, Kant; a lot of the terminology and preoccupations will make no sense if you aren't familiar with Aristotle. In fact Kant is a particularly good example; "apodictic certainty" is difficult to define but easily understood once you understand that apodexein = "to demonstrate" [by syllogism], in Aristotle's sense.)
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
411
New contributor
guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Logic means something different now than what it once did. In classical philosophy one primary branch of philosophy investigated the cosmos, one investigated human life, and a third investigated the forms of reasoning used in the other two: physikē, ethikē, logikē (See Diog. Laert. for variants on this schema.)
When an older writer (or a modern classicist) refers to Aristotle's "Logic" they mean the entire Organon, the first five books of the Aristotelian corpus. These are, in effect, Aristotle's philosophy itself!
Now, since Frege (roughly) there has been an increasing trend to use "logic" to refer to something like predicate logic or propositional logic: in Aristotle this would correspond to his theory of the syllogism (which is summarized here and there but most extensive in the Analytics). Three thoughts:
(1) Yes, in a sense the syllogism is something like a primitive version of set theory so most people interested in math and philosophy aren't going to find Aristotle's syllogism-theory a huge revelation.
(2) However, it isn't the "inner content" of syllogistic inferences Aristotle focuses on - the actual focus is on how syllogisms relate to things that are not syllogisms, including the subjects and predicates they take as arguments, fields of knowledge where syllogistic deductions are valid, licit non-deductive arguments, and illicit deductive fallacies.
(3) All of this machinery is necessary to understand any of the larger issues of Aristotle's physics and ethics - including what subjects are "sciences" (i.e., use deductive inference) - and also the narrower problem of how to interpret difficult passages.
So the problem isn't really that if you don't understand syllogistic logic, you won't understand how to make a deductive inference; the problem is that if you don't understand how Aristotle's theory of the syllogism fits in with Aristotle's theory of the proposition, Aristotle's ontology, etc. (the "Logic") most of the rest of Aristotle will fly over your head. I've done it both ways and Aristotle definitely makes more sense after you've read the Organon.
(And the same goes for many later philosophers who liberally borrow Aristotle's terminology and assumptions even when they profess to be attacking him. See the essay "Aristotle as cuttlefish" for one of the funnier illustrations; historians of philosophical grammar [Itkonen, Padley] are particularly good at documenting this conceptual debt. So the same point applies even to say, Kant; a lot of the terminology and preoccupations will make no sense if you aren't familiar with Aristotle. In fact Kant is a particularly good example; "apodictic certainty" is difficult to define but easily understood once you understand that apodexein = "to demonstrate" [by syllogism], in Aristotle's sense.)
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
411
New contributor
guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
411
New contributor
guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
411
answered 1 hour ago
guest1806
411
411
New contributor
guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Aristotle's Rhetoric was fun to read... it isn't long, and it offers a "classical" perspective on what makes a convincing (not just correct) argument. This was the work that introduced me to the notion of a slight, which, as it turns out, is a very powerful notion indeed.
answered 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,20817
Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Aristotle's Rhetoric was fun to read... it isn't long, and it offers a "classical" perspective on what makes a convincing (not just correct) argument. This was the work that introduced me to the notion of a slight, which, as it turns out, is a very powerful notion indeed.
answered 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,20817
Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Aristotle's Rhetoric was fun to read... it isn't long, and it offers a "classical" perspective on what makes a convincing (not just correct) argument. This was the work that introduced me to the notion of a slight, which, as it turns out, is a very powerful notion indeed.
answered 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,20817
Aristotle's Rhetoric was fun to read... it isn't long, and it offers a "classical" perspective on what makes a convincing (not just correct) argument. This was the work that introduced me to the notion of a slight, which, as it turns out, is a very powerful notion indeed.
answered 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,20817
answered 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,20817
answered 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,20817
answered 5 hours ago
elliot svensson
2,20817
2,20817
Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f56277%2fis-there-any-worth-to-reading-aristotles-works-on-logic-other-than-historical%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
"Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
– Conifold
2 hours ago
It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
– virmaior
1 hour ago