系列
发表于 2025-3-25 07:06:32
http://reply.papertrans.cn/17/1616/161580/161580_21.png
儿童
发表于 2025-3-25 09:43:15
http://reply.papertrans.cn/17/1616/161580/161580_22.png
指数
发表于 2025-3-25 12:24:35
First Figure X+Q (A15)This chapter considers other mixed modal syllogisms involving Q-contingency. All of the first figure X+Q syllogisms, including Barbara XQM, are listed in Table 21.
征兵
发表于 2025-3-25 18:36:39
First Figure L+Q, Q+L (A16)In . A16 Aristotle describes first figure syllogisms in which one premise is an apodeictic L-proposition and the other premise is a proposition about Q-contingency.
abduction
发表于 2025-3-25 22:09:36
Contingency in the 2nd Figure (A17–19)When we turn to consider . A17 where Aristotle discusses Q+Qs in the second figure, we find something very different right at the start. There are not any valid second figure Q+Q syllogisms.
MUMP
发表于 2025-3-26 02:52:10
Aristotle‘s Modal Proofs978-94-007-0050-5Series ISSN 1879-8578 Series E-ISSN 2352-2585
semble
发表于 2025-3-26 05:20:43
,Methoden der Funktionsprüfung,from non-modal premises. Aristotle discusses these in . A1–7. The assertoric syllogistic provides the foundation for the entire syllogistic system. Aristotle’s methods in the assertoric syllogistic are generally clear, easy to understand, and, as Aristotle scholarship goes, the methods here are relatively uncontroversial.
按时间顺序
发表于 2025-3-26 12:21:44
http://reply.papertrans.cn/17/1616/161580/161580_28.png
FLUSH
发表于 2025-3-26 14:48:09
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-42471-1unts. Albrecht Becker argues that the modal syllogistic falls apart because Aristotle makes a crucial mistake involving two different uses of .. (Becker 1933, pp. 41 – 43) Becker notices that Aristotle’s modal syllogisms appear to require that necessity acts as a qualifier on terms.
猜忌
发表于 2025-3-26 16:54:51
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-25803-3that ‘Aristotle’s doctrine of substance is integral to most of his philosophical work, not, however, to his strictly formal logic – a discipline which he inaugurated.’ (Anscombe 1961, p. vi) Whether or not Anscombe is correct it certainly seems clear that Aristotle thought that there could be no . syllogizing about what could be otherwise.