Kursplan, kurs på kandidat-/avancerad nivå

Aristotle’s Logic: The Theory of the Syllogism

Aristotle defines the syllogistic deduction – a.k.a. the syllogism – in at least three places of his philosophical output: In Prior Analytics 1.24b19-21, in Topics I.1.100a25–27, and in Rhetoric I.2.1356b16–18. Although the three versions of the definition are very similar, the use of the syllogism in the three treatises where they feature varies substantially. Aristotelian scholars have attempted to explain away these different uses in two opposite ways: (i) by positing an evolution in Aristotle’s understanding of the syllogism (best achieved in the Prior Analytics), or (ii) by explaining the differences on the basis of the different contexts where they are given; for they appear in works of different nature – the Prior Analytics deals with valid reasoning, the Topics with dialectical argumentation, and the Rhetoric with persuasive argumentation. The aim of this course is to study the different ways in which the differences in Aristotle’s use of the syllogism have been explained away, and to assess their advantages and disadvantages with respect to (a) the unity and coherence of Aristotle’s logical output, and (b) the unity and coherence of Aristotle’s most famous contribution to the history of philosophy, his theory of the syllogism. (Advanced students will also read a medieval Latin interpretation of the same problem, which will be provided in English translation by the teacher of the course).

Examiner: Ana María Mora-Márquez ([email protected])

Examination: To pass this course, the student needs to:

1. First, submit a course-paper (2000-3000 words) written in English, in which the following should be included (to be e-mailed to the examiner):

(i) An introduction to the problem, i.e., the different uses of the syllogism in different treatises.

(ii) An account of each of the two most influential positions regarding the problem (plus the medieval solution).

(iii) An assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each position, with respect to the unity and coherence of Aristotle’s logical output and his notion of the syllogism.

(iv) A defense of the most convincing position.

The course paper either receives the grade pass (G) or not pass (ej G)

2. Second, once the course paper has been given the grade pass (G), the examiner contacts the student to schedule a half-hour meeting. The student then prepares a 10-15 minutes lecture, to be given at the meeting. The lecture should be a summary of the paper as if it were to be presented at a multiple sessions conference; it should, then, include only the parts the of the paper that are fundamental for its structure and internal coherence. The rest of the time will be used for a critical discussion between examiner and student. The lecture is either given the grade pass with distinction (VG), pass (G), or not pass (ej G).

The overall grade for the course is pass (G) if the student receives that grade on both tasks, and pass with distinction (VG), if the student receives the grade pass on task (1) and the grade pass with distinction on task (2).

Literature:

J. Allen, « Aristotle on the Disciplines of Argument : Rhetoric, Dialectic, Analytic », Rhetorica, XXV, 1, 2007, p. 87–108. ---, « Syllogism, Demonstration, and Definition in Aristotle’s Topics and Posterior Analytics », Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, XL, 2011, p. 63–90.

R. Bolton, « The Problem of Dialectical Reasoning (Συλλογισμός) », Ancient Philosophy, 14, 1994, p. 99–132.

M. Frede, « Stoic vs. Aristotelian Syllogistic », dans M. Frede, Essays in Ancient Philosophy, Minneapolis, University of Minessota Press, 1987, p. 99–124.

D. Keyt, « Deductive Logic », dans G. Anagnostopoulos (éd.), A Companion to Aristotle, Oxford, Blackwell, 2009, p. 31–50.

M. Malink, « The Beginnings of Formal Logic : Deduction in Aristotle’s Topics vs. Prior Analytics », Phronesis, 60, 2015, p. 267–309.

W.D. Ross, « The Discovery of the Syllogism », Philosophical Review, 48, 3, 1939, p. 251–272.

F. Solmsem, « The Discovery of the Syllogism », The Philosophical Review, 50, 1941, p. 410–421.

G. Striker, « Aristotle and the Uses of Logic », dans J. Gentzler (éd.), Method in Ancient Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998, 209–226.

(Plus the medieval text provided by the examiner)

The papers will be uploaded to Canvas