Alexander’s essay on the conversion of predicative propositions contains otherwise unknown information about the early history of Aristotle’s logic. The essay survives only in a mutilated Arabic translation. This volume contains a new edition of the text, a translation (the first into any modern language), and a discursive commentary. It will be of interest to anyone concerned with the history of Aristotelianism or with the history of logic.
The commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias on Aristotle's Prior Analytics 1.8-22 is the main ancient commentary, by the 'greatest' commentator, on the chapters of the Prior Analytics in which Aristotle invented modal logic - the logic of propositions about what is necessary or contingent (possible). In this volume, which covers chapters 1.8-13, Alexander of Aphrodisias reaches the chapter in which Aristotle discusses the notion of contingency. Also included in this volume is Alexander's commentary on that part of Prior Analytics 1.17 which explains the conversion of contingent propositions (the rest of 1.17 is included in the second volume of Mueller's translation). Aristotle also invented the syllogism, a style of argument involving two premises and a conclusion. Modal propositions can be deployed in syllogism, and in the chapters included in this volume Aristotle discusses syllogisms consisting of two necessary propositions as well as the more controversial ones containing one necessary and one non-modal premiss. The discussion of syllogisms containing contingent propositions is reserved for Volume 2. In each volume, Ian Mueller provides a comprehensive explanation of Alexander's commentary on modal logic as a whole.
Alexander of Aphrodisias, who flourished c. 200AD, was the leading Peripatetic philosopher of his age. Most of his philosophical energies were spent in commenting upon Aristotle: his commentary on the Prior Analytics remains one of the most thorough and helpful guides to this difficult work; in addition, the commentary preserves invaluable information about various aspects of Stoic logic, and it also presents a picture of categorical syllogistic at a turning point in its historical development. This volume contains a translation of the first third of the commentary - the part dealing with non-modal syllogistic. The translation is preceded by a substantial introduction which discusses Alexander's place in the commentatorial tradition and his use of logical terminology. The book is completed by a translation of the pertinent part of the Prior Analytics, a summary account of categorical syllogistic, and a set of indexes.
The commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias on Aristotle's Prior Analytics 1.8-22 is a very important text, being the main ancient commentary with chapters in which Aristotle invented modal logic - the logic of propositions about what is necessary or contingent (possible). The first volume of Ian Mueller's translation covered chapters 1.8-13, and reached as far as the chapter in which Aristotle discussed the notion of contingency. In this, the second volume, the 'greatest' commentator, Alexander, concludes his discussion of Aristotle's modal logic. Aristotle also invented the syllogism, a style of argument involving two premises and a conclusion. Modal propositions can be deployed in syllogisms, and in the chapters included in this volume Aristotle discusses all the syllogisms containing at least one contingent premiss. In each volume, Ian Mueller provides a comprehensive explanation of Alexander's commentary on modal logic as a whole.
Al-Fārābī and Aristotelian Syllogistics deals with an important chapter in the history of Aristotelian logic in early medieval Islam and offers a unique and comprehensive analysis of the writings of the outstanding Muslim philosopher Abū Nasr al-Fārābī (d. 950/51). The first part focuses on a wide range of subjects relating to syllogistic theory proper; the second part deals with its application in the context of Islamic law and theology, and concludes with an in-depth analysis of the way in which Aristotelian logic came to be integrated into Muslim political thought. The sections on syllogistic theory proper are especially important for those interested in the history of Arabic logic; the remaining sections are required reading for historians of Islamic law, theology, and Islamic political philosophy.
How can we invent new certain knowledge in a methodical manner? This question stands at the heart of Salomon Maimon's theory of invention. Chikurel argues that Maimon's contribution to the ars inveniendi tradition lies in the methods of invention which he prescribes for mathematics. Influenced by Proclus' commentary on Elements, these methods are applied on examples taken from Euclid's Elements and Data. Centering around methodical invention and scientific genius, Maimon's philosophy is unique in an era glorifying the artistic genius, known as Geniezeit. Invention, primarily defined as constructing syllogisms, has implications on the notion of being given in intuition as well as in symbolic cognition. Chikurel introduces Maimon's notion of analysis in the broader sense, grounded not only on the principle of contradiction but on intuition as well. In philosophy, ampliative analysis is based on Maimon's logical term of analysis of the object, a term that has yet to be discussed in Maimonian scholarship. Following its introduction, a new version of the question quid juris? arises. In mathematics, Chikurel demonstrates how this conception of analysis originates from practices of Greek geometrical analysis.
A scholarly edition of a classic textbook on logic Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī’s al-Risālah al-Shamsiyyah is a scholarly edition and translation of The Rules of Logic, with commentary and notes. Composed by Najm al-Dīn al-Kātibī, a scholar of the Shāfiʿī school of law, al-Risālah al-Shamsiyyah is the most widely read introduction to logic in the Arabic-speaking world. It has probably enjoyed a longer shelf-life than any other logic textbook ever written, having been in use by madrasah students from the early eighth/fourteenth century up until the present day. Building on the theories of Avicenna, al-Rāzī, and other pioneers of logic, al-Kātibī discusses the many pitfalls of building arguments and setting out unambiguous claims in natural language. The enduring nature of the text is a testament to al-Kātibī and his impact on concepts of formal discourse and argument.
This volume presents 27 essays on logic in ancient philosophy by Jonathan Barnes, one of the most admired philosophers of his generation. He explores the thought of Galen, Cicero, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Boethius, amongst others. This is the second volume of Barnes' Essays in Ancient Philosophy: a rich feast for students and scholars alike.
Aristotle was the founder not only of logic but also of modal logic. In the Prior Analytics he developed a complex system of modal syllogistic which, while influential, has been disputed since antiquity—and is today widely regarded as incoherent. In this meticulously argued new study, Marko Malink presents a major reinterpretation of Aristotle’s modal syllogistic. Combining analytic rigor with keen sensitivity to historical context, he makes clear that the modal syllogistic forms a consistent, integrated system of logic, one that is closely related to other areas of Aristotle’s philosophy. Aristotle’s modal syllogistic differs significantly from modern modal logic. Malink considers the key to understanding the Aristotelian version to be the notion of predication discussed in the Topics—specifically, its theory of predicables (definition, genus, differentia, proprium, and accident) and the ten categories (substance, quantity, quality, and so on). The predicables introduce a distinction between essential and nonessential predication. In contrast, the categories distinguish between substantial and nonsubstantial predication. Malink builds on these insights in developing a semantics for Aristotle’s modal propositions, one that verifies the ancient philosopher’s claims of the validity and invalidity of modal inferences. Malink recognizes some limitations of this reconstruction, acknowledging that his proof of syllogistic consistency depends on introducing certain complexities that Aristotle could not have predicted. Nonetheless, Aristotle’s Modal Syllogistic brims with bold ideas, richly supported by close readings of the Greek texts, and offers a fresh perspective on the origins of modal logic.
