18909
|
Aristotelian sentences are made up by one of four 'formative' connectors [Aristotle, by Engelbretsen]
|
|
Full Idea:
For Aristotle there are four formatives for sentences: 'belongs to some', 'belongs to every', 'belongs to no', and 'does not belong to every'. These are 'copulae'. Aristotle would have written 'wise belongs to some man'.
|
|
From:
report of Aristotle (Prior Analytics [c.328 BCE]) by George Engelbretsen - Trees, Terms and Truth 3
|
|
A reaction:
A rather set-theoretic reading. This invites a Quinean scepticism about whether wisdom is some entity which can 'belong' to a person. It makes trope theory sound attractive, offering a unique wisdom that is integrated into that particular person.
|
8080
|
Aristotelian identified 256 possible syllogisms, saying that 19 are valid [Aristotle, by Devlin]
|
|
Full Idea:
Aristotle identified four 'figures' of argument, based on combinations of Subject (S) and Predicate (P) and Middle term (M). The addition of 'all' and 'some', and 'has' and 'has not' got the property, resulted in 256 possible syllogisms, 19 of them valid.
|
|
From:
report of Aristotle (Prior Analytics [c.328 BCE]) by Keith Devlin - Goodbye Descartes Ch.2
|
|
A reaction:
[Compressed version of Devlin] What Aristotle did was astonishing, and must be one of the key ideas of western civilization, even though a lot of his assumptions have been revised or rejected.
|
13912
|
Aristotle replaced Plato's noun-verb form with unions of pairs of terms by one of four 'copulae' [Aristotle, by Engelbretsen/Sayward]
|
|
Full Idea:
Aristotle replaced the Platonic noun-verb account of logical syntax with a 'copular' account. A sentence is a pair of terms bound together logically (not necessarily grammatically) by one of four 'logical copulae' (every, none, some, not some).
|
|
From:
report of Aristotle (Prior Analytics [c.328 BCE]) by Engelbretsen,G/Sayward,C - Philosophical Logic: Intro to Advanced Topics 8
|
|
A reaction:
So the four copulas are are-all, are-never, are-sometimes, and are-sometime-not. Consider 'men' and 'mortal'. Alternatively, Idea 18909.
|
9403
|
There are three different deductions for actual terms, necessary terms and possible terms [Aristotle]
|
|
Full Idea:
Since to belong, to belong of necessity, and to be possible to belong are different, ..there will be different deductions for each; one deduction will be from necessary terms, one from terms which belong, and one from possible terms.
|
|
From:
Aristotle (Prior Analytics [c.328 BCE], 29b29-35)
|
|
A reaction:
Fitting and Mendelsohn cite this as the earliest thoughts on modal logic. but Kneale and Kneale say that Aristotle got into a muddle, and so was unable to create a workable system.
|
11148
|
Deduction is when we suppose one thing, and another necessarily follows [Aristotle]
|
|
Full Idea:
A deduction is a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so.
|
|
From:
Aristotle (Prior Analytics [c.328 BCE], 24b18)
|
|
A reaction:
Notice that it is modal ('suppose', rather than 'know'), that necessity is involved, which is presumably metaphysical necessity, and that there are assumptions about what would be true, and not just what follows from what.
|
8079
|
Aristotelian logic has two quantifiers of the subject ('all' and 'some') [Aristotle, by Devlin]
|
|
Full Idea:
Aristotelian logic has two quantifiers of the subject ('all' and 'some'), and two ways to combine the subject with the predicate ('have', and 'have not'), giving four propositions: all-s-have-p, all-s-have-not-p, some-s-have-p, and some-s-have-not-p.
|
|
From:
report of Aristotle (Prior Analytics [c.328 BCE]) by Keith Devlin - Goodbye Descartes Ch.2
|
|
A reaction:
Frege seems to have switched from 'some' to 'at-least-one'. Since then other quantifiers have been proposed. See, for example, Ideas 7806 and 6068.
|
13190
|
I don't admit infinite numbers, and consider infinitesimals to be useful fictions [Leibniz]
|
|
Full Idea:
Notwithstanding my infinitesimal calculus, I do not admit any real infinite numbers, even though I confess that the multitude of things surpasses any finite number, or rather any number. ..I consider infinitesimal quantities to be useful fictions.
|
|
From:
Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Samuel Masson [1716], 1716)
|
|
A reaction:
With the phrase 'useful fictions' we seem to have jumped straight into Harty Field. I'm with Leibniz on this one. The history of mathematics is a series of ingenious inventions, whenever they seem to make further exciting proofs possible.
|
18911
|
Linguistic terms form a hierarchy, with higher terms predicable of increasing numbers of things [Aristotle, by Engelbretsen]
|
|
Full Idea:
According to Aristotle, the terms of a language form a finite hierarchy, where the higher terms are predicable of more things than are lower terms.
|
|
From:
report of Aristotle (Prior Analytics [c.328 BCE]) by George Engelbretsen - Trees, Terms and Truth 3
|
|
A reaction:
I would be a bit cautious about placing something precisely in a hierarchy according to how many things it can be predicated of. It is a start, though, in trying to give a decent account of generality, which is a major concept in philosophy.
|
7657
|
Intelligent agents are composed of nested homunculi, of decreasing intelligence, ending in machines [Dennett]
|
|
Full Idea:
As long as your homunculi are more stupid and ignorant than the intelligent agent they compose, the nesting of homunculi within homunculi can be finite, bottoming out, eventually, with agents so unimpressive they can be replaced by machines.
|
|
From:
Daniel C. Dennett (Sweet Dreams [2005], Ch.6)
|
|
A reaction:
[Dennett first proposed this in 'Brainstorms' 1978]. This view was developed well by Lycan. I rate it as one of the most illuminating ideas in the modern philosophy of mind. All complex systems (like aeroplanes) have this structure.
|
7656
|
I don't deny consciousness; it just isn't what people think it is [Dennett]
|
|
Full Idea:
I don't maintain, of course, that human consciousness does not exist; I maintain that it is not what people often think it is.
|
|
From:
Daniel C. Dennett (Sweet Dreams [2005], Ch.3)
|
|
A reaction:
I consider Dennett to be as near as you can get to an eliminativist, but he is not stupid. As far as I can see, the modern philosopher's bogey-man, the true total eliminativist, simply doesn't exist. Eliminativists usually deny propositional attitudes.
|