[lit-ideas] Aristotle's Sillygistic

  • From: jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:03:36 EST



As P. Stone says, "Children should not learn to be Aristotelian.  
Aristotelian logic is flawed on a number of fronts. The fact that premises lead 
 to 
conclusion regardless is surely a basic drawback of Western Logic as from  
Aristotle onwards."


In a message dated 1/11/2010 1:00:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pastone@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Matthew: daddy, the cat is purring
Dad: Yes, do  you know why?
Matthew: Because he's a cat.

--- but where's the middle  term. Shouldn't the answer be: "Because he is a 
purrer".
 
Today I went to buy a watering can. It turned out to be made of can, but I  
asked my friend. Would you still call it a watering can if made of plastic? 
He  said, Yes. "I wouldn't," I said. "What about 'waterer'. 
 
It's safest to go by attributes (purrings) rather than substances (cats).  
For Aristotle the syllogism's middle term can be either semeion or 
meikerion.  And it's always apodeictic apodeixis, i.e. necessary proof.
 
Note that it's the first FIGURE of the sillygism, not the first sillygism  
proper
Cheers,
 
J. L. Speranza
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: