[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:
