Logic ; modern vs trad. aristotlean/scholastic

[Lagrange]

As many no doubt who have studied logic in a secular institution would see, the principles rely heavily on a Fregean approach. There is also a certain disdain for Aristotlean syllogistic logic as being 'outdated' or incomplete. It's as if people only really ''got'' logic in the past 50-100 years with the  recent developments.

Who knows enough to comment on these issues? Have the moderns simply gone off track? Or is Aristotlean based logic simply incomplete? Or a bit of both?

[Benno]

i know enough to say that you sound like a wandering daisy in the field of yourself.

[Lagrange]

i know enough to say that you sound like a wandering daisy in the field of yourself.

Care to enlighten me ?!

[A Catholic Thinker]

i know enough to say that you sound like a wandering daisy in the field of yourself.

Care to enlighten me ?!

Color me a bit perplexed as well. 

[Lagrange]

i know enough to say that you sound like a wandering daisy in the field of yourself.

Care to enlighten me ?!

Color me a bit perplexed as well. 

Color? My font is black isn't it?

Unless you mean the topic. Then so am I .

[SouthpawLink]

I wish I knew enough to comment on this topic. I only just received Msgr. Paul Glenn's Introduction to Philosophy today, but I cannot currently afford any of his other outstanding works (used by seminarians to study Scholastic philosophy). I look forward to reading his introduction!

I will be watching this thread with much interest.

[Lagrange]

I wish I knew enough to comment on this topic. I only just received Msgr. Paul Glenn's Introduction to Philosophy today, but I cannot currently afford any of his other outstanding works (used by seminarians to study Scholastic philosophy). I look forward to reading his introduction!

I will be watching this thread with much interest.

That will test your patience!

[SouthpawLink]

I wish I knew enough to comment on this topic. I only just received Msgr. Paul Glenn's Introduction to Philosophy today, but I cannot currently afford any of his other outstanding works (used by seminarians to study Scholastic philosophy). I look forward to reading his introduction!

I will be watching this thread with much interest.

That will test your patience!

 

You can find his Dialectics, Criteriology and Ethics over at Amazon, with Criteriology being the most expensive of the bunch (the cheapest copy is $63).

[theloveofwisdom]

Well, if I may chime in...

The way I understand it, the primary difference between modern logic and traditional logic is that modern logic is suppositional.

This is rooted in the denial of the universal which is related to the notion of Kant's 'phenomenon' and its development through the English philosophers.

Let me demonstrate by means of an example:

Traditional Logic:

Every man is mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Ergo, Socrates is mortal.

This statement presumes the existence of 'man' as a universal notion with a particular nature. The first premise here enumerates the property of that nature- mortality. This syllogism involves a deduction- a logical step from the universal to the singular.


John steward mill, for example, believes that something like the syllogism is useless. This is because his conception of the universal is non-existent/skewed. He believes that a universal is simply an infinite list of singulars, rather than a nature contained in and describing a reality. So as an example:

All men are mortal,
Joe is a man
Ergo, Joe is Mortal.


Notice the difference in the grammatical structure here. In the traditional syllogism, "Every man is mortal" while in the modern, "All men are mortal". This is intentional on my part, because again, To Mill, "Man" is not a universal concept, but a list of particulars. There is no deduction made here, there is only an inference. Joe is one of the possible people included in the infinite set of particular men within the title "men". So for Mill, there is  here a vicious circle of reasoning, wherein the conclusion is proved by the first premise, while the first premise proves the conclusion.

So based on this criticism, and other criticisms which effectively deny the universal, the syllogism is discarded- and a new methodology of logic was developed.

Modern Logic is suppositional- by this I mean that it is based on assumptions. It has no necessary connection to reality. In other words, with modern logic, one can make valid arguments that have no bases in reality. The premises used for argumentation are taken as true unless otherwise stated, there is no necessary comparison between the premises stated and reality itself. Modern Logic, strictly speaking, is not concerned with whether or not the conclusions made are objectively true- only whether or not the argumentation follows.

And to answer your other question- No, the new forms of logic are not wrong, they are modes of valid argumentation. There are a legitimate development of tradtional logic, however, they tend to ignore what came before as outdated.

I hope this helps- If someone more knowledgeable than I on the subject feels I've misrepresented something, please chime in.

[Joseph11]

As many no doubt who have studied logic in a secular institution would see, the principles rely heavily on a Fregean approach. There is also a certain disdain for Aristotlean syllogistic logic as being 'outdated' or incomplete. It's as if people only really ''got'' logic in the past 50-100 years with the  recent developments.

Who knows enough to comment on these issues? Have the moderns simply gone off track? Or is Aristotlean based logic simply incomplete? Or a bit of both?

I don't know enough to comment.  But I know a book by a man who does:

Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Fordham University.  It is an introductory logic text.  He specifically wrote it to teach people Aristotelian, rather than modern symbolic, logic.

http://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-3-1e-Platonic-Questions/dp/1587318083/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1288933031&sr=1-1

i know enough to say that you sound like a wandering daisy in the field of yourself.

Actually, Dr. Kreeft might say Lagrange is on to something that might be important.  He discusses almost the identical ideas in Lagrange's post at the beginning of Socratic Logic.

Interesting stuff indeed.