Aither is a double-blind peer review, Open Access online academic journal. It is indexed at ERIH+ and Scopus. It is published by the Faculty of Arts of the Palacký University in Olomouc in cooperation with the Philosophical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. It comes out twice a year. Every second issue is international and contains foreign-language articles (mainly in English, but also in German and French). The journal is registered under the number ISSN 1803-7860.

Aither 20/2018 (International issue no. 5):98-107 | DOI: 10.5507/aither.2018.010

Aristotle vs. Boole: A case of the Universe of Discourse

Karel Šebela
Faculty of Arts, Palacky University Olomouc

I will present a case study comparing Aristotelian and modern predicate logic. The traditional square of opposition embodied certain relations between propositions. When rewritten into the language of modern logic, the relations embodied in the traditional square mostly disappear. As a matter of fact, some conservative versions of predicate logic, namely sortal logic, preserve relations in the square. I will argue that the explanation of the fact is that modern logic accepts the so- called principle of wholistic reference. The principle was stated initially by Boole with respect to his concept of a so-called universe of discourse. According to the principle, each and every proposition refers to the universe of discourse as such. The difference between Aristotelian and modern logic will thus be portrayed as a difference in the concept of what are we talking about in the universal propositions.

Published: September 30, 2018  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Šebela, K. (2018). Aristotle vs. Boole: A case of the Universe of Discourse. Aither10(20), 98-107. doi: 10.5507/aither.2018.010
Download citation

References

  1. Boole, G. (2006). An Investigation of the Laws of Thought. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg.
  2. Cocchiarella, N. (1977). Sortals, natural kinds and re-dentification. Logique et Analyse 20, p. 438-474.
  3. Cohen, M.R., Nagel, E. (1998). An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Ltd.
  4. Copi, I., Copi, C., McMahon, K. (2014). Introduction to Logic. Fourteenth edition. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  5. Corcoran, J. (2004). The Principle of Wholistic Reference. Manuscrito 30, p. 493-505.
  6. Corcoran, J. (2003). Aristotle's Prior Analytics and Boole's Laws of Thought. History and Philosophy of Logic 24, p. 261-288. Go to original source...
  7. Łukasiewicz, Jan L. (1957). Aristotle's Syllogistic: From the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic. 2nd edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  8. Parsons, T. (2017). The Traditional Square of Opposition. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Zalta, N. (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/square/.
  9. Smiley, T. (1962). Syllogism and Quantification. The Journal of Symbolic Logic,27, p. 58-72. Go to original source...
  10. Šebela, K. (2018). Internal Negation and Universe of Discourse: Kant and Boole. Czech and Slovak Journal of Humanities, to appear.
  11. Šebela, K. (2015). Variace na témata aristotelské logiky. Plzeň: Západočeská univerzita v Plzni.
  12. Šebela, K., Sedlár, I. (2018). Term Negation in First-Order Logic. Logique et Analyse, to appear.
  13. Vlasáková, M. (2015). Logický čtverec a otázka existence (in Czech). Filosofický časopis 63, p. 77-93.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.