I.M. Bocheński and Theophrastus’ Modal Logic

• Authors: Gili Luca
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Innocenty Maria Bocheński expounded his interpretation of Theophrastus’ logic chiefly in his book La logique de Théophraste (1947). In Bocheński’s reconstruction, Theophrastus worked on the last insights of Aristotle’s syllogistic and systematized it, thereby opening the door to later (Stoic) developments in the history of logic. A closer look at Bocheński’s interpretation of Theophrastus’ logic can lead us to reassess the originality of the contribution of the philosopher of Eresus. As more recent studies have convincingly shown, Aristotle’s modal system is grounded on the theory of predication expounded in the Topics. The validity of Barbara LX-L rests on the essential predications that the major premise and the conclusion are descriptive. According to Bocheński, Theophrastus had an extensional understanding of logic, as is clear from his proof for the rules of conversion of categorical universal propositions. Bocheński also stresses that Theophrastus consistently avoids Aristotle’s two-sided possibility and this might also be read as an attempt to develop a self-contained logical system that is not merely seen as the deductive system of a theoretical discipline. Bocheński’s overall assessment of Theophrastus’ logic might be in need of revision, inasmuch as our understanding of Aristotle’s logical enterprise has radically changed in the last decades, but the minutiae of Bocheński’s reading of Theophrastus are compelling and can stimulate new studies on the successor of the Stagirite.

Keywords

EN

I.M. Bocheński; Theophrastus; modal syllogistic; Prior Analytics; Aristotle; modal logic

• Publisher: University of Warsaw, Institute of Philosophy
• Journal: Edukacja Filozoficzna
• Year: 2020
• Issue: 70
• Pages: 23-38

Contributors

author

Gili Luca

References

• Barnes J., Truth, etc., Oxford 2007.
• Becker A., Die aristotelische Theorie der Möglichkeitsschlüsse. Eine logisch-philologische Untersuchung der Kapitel 13–22 von Aristoteles’ Analytica Priora I, Berlin 1933.
• Bocheński I.M., Ancient Formal Logic, Dordrecht 1951.
• Bocheński I.M., Formale Logik, Fribourg–München 1956.
• Bocheński I.M., La logique de Théophraste, Fribourg 1947.
• Bocheński I.M., Notes historiques sur les propositions modales, “Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques” 1937, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 673–692.
• Chiaradonna R., Rashed M., Boéthos de Sidon – Exégète d’Aristote et philosophe, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina – Series Academica 1, Berlin–Boston, MA 2020.
• Fortenbaugh W.W., Huby P.M., Sharples R.W., Gutas D., eds., Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for His Life, Writings, Thought and Influence, 2 vols., Leiden 1992.
• Gili L., Boeto di Sidone e Alessandro di Afrodisia intorno alla sillogistica aristotelica, “Rheinisches Museum für Philologie” 2011, Vol. 154, pp. 375–397.
• Gili L., Il confronto di Giovanni Filopono con Alessandro di Afrodisia intorno al problema della conversione delle proposizioni, “Elenchos. Rivista di studi sul pensiero antico” 2015, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 317–339.
• Gili L., Interpreting Aristotle’s Modal Syllogistic, “Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale” 2015, Vol. 26, pp. 1–12.
• Gili L., La sillogistica del necessario in alcune interpretazioni novecentesche, “Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica” 2016, Vol. 2, pp. 445–463.
• Gili L., La sillogistica di Alessandro di Afrodisia. Sillogistica categorica e sillogistica modale nel commento agli Analitici Primi di Aristotele, Hildesheim 2011.
• Huby P., Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for His Life, Writings, Thought and Influence. Commentary Volume 2. Logic, with contributions on the Arabic material by D. Gutas, Leiden 2007.
• Ierodiakonou K., Theophrastus, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Zalta, URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/theophrastus (substantive revision published on 24.09.2020).
• Kaczyński E., La ricerca logica di I.M. Bocheński durante il suo insegnamento all’ “Angelicum” (1934–1939), “Angelicum” 2003, Vol. 80, No. 1, pp. 9–33.
• Kneale W., Kneale M., Prosleptic Propositions and Arguments, in: Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition: Essays Presented by His Friends and Pupils to Richard Walzer on His Seventieth Birthday, eds. S.M. Stern, A. Hourani, V. Brown, Columbia, SC 1972, pp. 189–207.
• Łukasiewicz J., Aristotle’s Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic, 2nd ed., Oxford 1957.
• Malink M., Aristotle on One-Sided Possibility, in: Logical Modalities from Aristotle to Carnap: The Story of Necessity, eds. M. Cresswell, E. Mares, A. Rini, Cambridge 2016, pp. 29–49, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139939553.003.
• Malink M., Aristotle’s Modal Syllogistic, Cambridge, MA 2013, https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674726352.
• Malink M., Figures of Prosleptic Syllogisms in Prior Analytics 2.7, “Classical Quarterly” 2012, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 163–178, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838811000565.
• Malink M., A Non-Extensional Notion of Conversion in the Organon, “Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy” 2009, Vol. 37, pp. 105–141.
• Mariani M., Logica modale e metafisica. Saggi aristotelici, Pisa 2018.
• Mignucci M., Per una nuova interpretazione della logica modale di Teofrasto, “Vichiana” 1965, Vol. 2, pp. 3–53.
• Mignucci M., Theophrastus’ Logic, in: Theophrastus: Reappraising the Sources, eds. J. van Ophuijsen, M. van Raalte, Leiden 1998, pp. 39–65.
• Prantl C., Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande, Leipzig 1927.
• Read S., Aristotle and Łukasiewicz on Existential Import, “Journal of the American Philosophical Association” 2015, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 535–544, https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2015.8.
• Repici L., La logica di Teofrasto. Studio critico e raccolta dei frammenti e delle testimonianze, Bologna 1977.