Dilemmas of logical hylomorphism
- DOI
- 10.5922/0207-6918-2015-2-6
- Pages
- 86-96
Abstract
Logical hylomorphism considers logic as a theory of formal relations. However, it is difficult to give a precise definition of these relations due to a multitude of interpretations of formality in logic. This paper acknowledges the dichotomy of the substantial and dynamic models of formality. Firstly, the author suggests revising certain interpretations of Aristotelian syllogistics and attempts to answer the question as to why Aristotle did not become the founder of logical hylomorphism. It is argued that, as a metatheory, Aristotelian syllogistics addresses formal relations between the perfect and imperfect rules of inference rather than the canonical structures of categorical statements. The absence of a strict distinction between logical syntax and semantics in Aristotelian syllogistics and his reductive approach to the patterns of inferences (i. e. the syllogistic moods in the three figures) shifts focus from the schematic to dynamic model of formality. Secondly, the author assesses the logical hylomorphism of Alexander of Aphrodisias, who connected it with metaphysical form vs. matter dichotomy. Thirdly, it is argued that Kant’s transcendental logic is a logic in the formal sense. Whereas general logic is concerned merely with constitutive rules of inference, transcendental logic is concerned with regulative rules aimed at better reasoning
Reference
1. Аристотель. Метафизика // Аристотель. Соч. : в 4 т. М., 1975. Т. 1.
2. Аристотель. Первая Аналитика // Там же. 1978. Т. 2.
3. Аристотель. Физика // Там же. 1981. Т. 3.
4. Бочаров В. А., Маркин В. И. Силлогистические теории. М., 2010.
5. Брюшинкин В. Н. Парадигмы Канта: логическая форма // Кантовский сборник. 1985. № 10. С. 30—40.
6. Брюшинкин В. Н. Метапсихологизм Канта // Кантовский сборник. 2004. № 24. С. 65—73.
7. Витгенштейн Л. Логико-философский трактат. М., 2008.
8. Драгалина-Черная Е. Г. Онтологии для Абеляра и Элоизы. М., 2012.
9. Кант И. Критика чистого разума // Кант И. Соч. : в 8 т. М., 1994. Т. 3.
10. Лукасевич Я. Аристотелевская силлогистика с точки зрения современной формальной логики. М., 1959.
11. Микеладзе З. Н. Примечания // Аристотель. Соч. : в 4 т. М., 1975. Т. 2.
12. Achourioti T., Lambalgen M. van. A formalisation of Kant’s transcendental logic // Review of Symbolic Logic. 2011. Vol. 4. № 2. Р. 254—289.
13. Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle’s Prior Analytics 1.1—7. L., 1991.
14. Barnes J. Logical Form and Logical Matter // Logica, Mente E Persona. Studi Sulla Filosofia Antica. Antonina, 1990. Р. 7—119.
15. Corcoran J. Aristotle's Natural Deduction System // Ancient logic and its modern interpretations. Dordrecht, Boston, 1974. Р. 85—132.
16. Dragalina-Chernaya E. Logical hylomorphism revisited // Philosophy, Mathematics, Linguistics: Aspects of Interaction 2014 (PhML-2014). St. Petersburg, 2014. P. 6—11.
17. Dutilh Novaes С. The Different Ways in which Logic is (said to be) Formal // History and Philosophy of Logic. 2011. Vol. 32. № 4. Р. 303—332.
18. Ebbesen S. Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchi. Leiden, 1981. Vol. 1.
19. Flannery K. L. Ways into the Logic of Alexander of Aphrodisias. Leiden, 1995.
20. Husserl E. Formal and Transcendental Logic. Dordrecht, 1969.
21. Ierodiakonou K. Aristotle's Use of Examples in the «Prior Analytics» // Phronesis. 2002. Vol. 47. № 2. Р. 127—152.
22. Kirwan C. Logic and Argument. New York University Press, 1978.
23. MacFarlane J. What does it mean to say that logic is formal? PhD dissertation. Pittsburgh University, 2000.
24. Prior A. N. Formal Logic. Oxford, 1962.
25. Rose L. Aristotle' s Syllogistic. Springfield Illinois, 1968.
26. Smiley T. The Schematic Fallacy // Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1982. Vol. 83. Р. 1—17.
27. Striker G. Aristotle’s Prior Analytics: Book 1. Oxford, 2009.
Reference
[