Skip to main content

Logic and the Stoics I


Logic isn't a closed body of learning.

Some people still think of it as something Aristotle created, and that allows for no improvement, so that the study of logic remains the study of Aristotelian principles to this day and forever.

But that is not true. First, much of what is touted as central to Aristotle’s contribution was simply taken over from his mentor, Plato. Recall the discussion of the turning top in The Republic.

But more important, not only did Aristotle not start it, he didn't finish it either. Quite soon after Aristotle’s death, perhaps before it, people (notably those of the Stoic school) were making new contributions, taking different perspectives. 

Conditional statements fascinated the Stoics, “If p, then q.” It turns out there are different ways of interpreting that simple-seeming rubric, and Stoics thrashed them out. Note that  the "if/then" rubric is already different from Aristotle's categorical statements. "All men are mortal" and so forth.  A Stoic syllogism runs: if p is the case, then q. And p is the case. So, q. 

A mere syntactical difference from Aristotle's, you might say, pish-posh. Except that if you are alive in the 21st century you are unlikely to say "pish posh" very often. but set that aside. I have to say that the conditional format for logic was an important innovation. First, it helps make clear the reversibility of valid inferences.

Consider the scenario in which someone who dislikes spicy foods, who is eating something new for the first time, and who doesn’t know the ingredients, might try to infer something about them in this way: If this food were spicy I would be unhappy. Yet I am not unhappy. So this food is not spicy. That follows the format we described, in which p is a fact about immediate reaction/happiness of the diner and q is the spice level of the food.

This is known as the modus tollens, a Latin phrase meaning "the method of denying." 

Such technical innovations in logic came with a lot of Stoic baggage, especially including the notion of destiny.  I'll get to that in my next entry. 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more