Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ http://cyberleninka....arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

Трактовка отношения логического следования в школах поздней античности

Трактовка отношения логического следования в школах поздней античности

Abstract

The paper presents and analyzes the major contemporary perspectives on the issue of the interpretation of the logical entailment in the systems of the Stoics, the Peripatetics and the Neoplatonists. It analyzes the texts of late treatises by Apuleius, Galen, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Boethius, anonymous scholia to “Th e fi rst Analytics” of Aristotle, not translated into Russian. It takes into account the latest works of modern foreign researchers. There is an entrenched in the history of logic point of view that Aristotle’s syllogistics is based on the connection between the terms, and later Stoic system is based on the relationship between sentences. Th e paper shows that none of the reviewed works of late antiquity opposes the Stoic syllogistics to syllogistics of Aristotle and the Peripatetics, as propositional logic to logic of terms. Analysis of the works of late antiquity authors shows that they did not see fundamental diff erences between Aristotelian and Stoic syllogistics. This conclusion makes us turn deeper to the Aristotelian idea of creating a unified theory of categorical and hypothetical syllogism, in which the necessity of logical entailment is based both on the relationship between the terms and on the relationship between propositions. Refs 12.

В статье представлены и проанализированы основные современные точки зрения на вопрос о трактовке логического следования в системах стоиков, перипатетиков, неоплатоников. Анализируются тексты позднеантичных трактатов Апулея, Галена, Александра Афродизийского, Боэция, анонимной схолии к «Первой Аналитике» Аристотеля, не переведенные на русский язык. При этом учитываются последние работы современных зарубежных исследователей. В истории логики закрепилась точка зрения, согласно которой силлогистика Аристотеля построена на связи между терминами, а более поздняя система стоиков строится на связи между предложениями. В статье показано, что ни в одной из рассмотренных позднеантичных работ силлогистика стоиков не противопоставляется силлогистике Аристотеля и перипатетиков как логика высказываний логике терминов. Анализ трудов позднеантичных авторов показывает, что они не видят принципиальных различий между аристотелевской и стоической силлогистикой. Такой вывод заставляет снова обратиться к аристотелевскому замыслу создания единой теории категорического и гипотетического силлогизма, в которой необходимость логического следования построена как на отношениях между терминами, так и на отношениях между высказываниями. Библиогр. 12 назв.

Keywords

ИСТОРИЯ ЛОГИКИ, ПЕРИПАТЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ЛОГИКА, СТОИЧЕСКАЯ ЛОГИКА, ОТНОШЕНИЕ ЛОГИЧЕСКОГО СЛЕДОВАНИЯ, КАТЕГОРИЧЕСКИЙ И ГИПОТЕТИЧЕСКИЙ СИЛЛОГИЗМ

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average