Abstract
Everyone agrees that Aristotle’s modal syllogistic is flawed. But I do not share the view of some scholars that its flaws all reduce to a single error — that of applying to de dicto inferences principles that are sound only de re.1 think the flaws in Aristotle’s fabric are more various. I distinguish substantial from incidental mistakes, and both from inconsistencies. By incidental mistakes I mean mistakes which can be rectified without altering the body of theses in the system. By substantial mistakes I mean irremediable mistakes, ones whose rectification entails altering the body of theses in the system. Inconsistencies arise when different parts of the body of theory come into conflict with one another.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See STAHL 1976 p.207; STAHL 1977 p.211.
HINTIKKA, ch.7 sect.4.
SMITH ad 30a25–28.
See THOM 1981 §46 Theorem, Corollary 4.
For an excellent discussion of this, see PATTERSON 1995 pp.197–198.
For QaLaLo-2 see model 28.19; for QaLaQi-2 see model 28.20; for QaXaMo-2, XaQaMo-2 see model 28.21; for LaQaLo-2 see models 28.22, 28.23; for LaQaQi-2 see model 28.24.
This is argued by HENLE p.99 n.27, and by VAN RIJEN pp.195, 198.
VAN RIJEN (footnote 1), 195.
MIGNUCCI ad 31a17 agrees that Baroco XLL can be shown valid by ecthesis and that Aristotle has not demonstrated its invalidity here. But Mignucci thinks Aristotle’s counter-example is designed to show the validity (!) of inferring both be 0 and ~Lbc 0 from the premisses 〈ab a,~Lab a,ac 0 〉. This is wrong. A counter-example cannot demonstrate validity. And, contrary to Mignucci’s statement, Aristotle’s example does not make ab a true but not necessary; for, the statement Every white is man, if true is for Aristotle necessary (provable by Darii LXL).
MIGNUCCI ad 32a5 accepts Aristotle’s counter-example, but maintains that it is valid to infer both ab 0 and ~ Lab 0 from the premisses 〈Lac 0,bc a,~Lbc a〉. On my view, the apodeictic as well as the assertoric version of ab 0 follows whether bc a is apodeictic or assertoric, provided that ac 0 is apodeictic.
The latter, at any rate, is recognised by van Rijen (footnote 1), 201.
VAN RIJEN p.198. See THOM 1991 §3, and PATTERSON 1995 §4.3.5, for further discussion of Van Rijen.
WIELAND 1975 p.88.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thom, P. (1996). Flaws in the Fabric. In: The Logic of Essentialism. The New Synthese Historical Library, vol 43. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1663-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1663-0_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7244-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-1663-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive