AN INTENSIONAL LEIBNIZ SEMANTICS FOR ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC
Since Frege’s predicate logical transcription of Aristotelian categorical logic, the standard semantics of Aristotelian logic considers terms as standing for sets of individuals. From a philosophical standpoint, this extensional model poses problems: There exist serious doubts that Aristotle’s terms...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The review of symbolic logic 2010-06, Vol.3 (2), p.262-272 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 272 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 262 |
container_title | The review of symbolic logic |
container_volume | 3 |
creator | GLASHOFF, KLAUS |
description | Since Frege’s predicate logical transcription of Aristotelian categorical logic, the standard semantics of Aristotelian logic considers terms as standing for sets of individuals. From a philosophical standpoint, this extensional model poses problems: There exist serious doubts that Aristotle’s terms were meant to refer always to sets, that is, entities composed of individuals. Classical philosophy up to Leibniz and Kant had a different view on this question—they looked at terms as standing for concepts (“Begriffe”). In 1972, Corcoran presented a formal system for Aristotelian logic containing a calculus of natural deduction, while, with respect to semantics, he still made use of an extensional interpretation. In this paper we deal with a simple intensional semantics for Corcoran’s syntax—intensional in the sense that no individuals are needed for the construction of a complete Tarski model of Aristotelian syntax. Instead, we view concepts as containing or excluding other, “higher” concepts—corresponding to the idea which Leibniz used in the construction of his characteristic numbers. Thus, this paper is an addendum to Corcoran’s work, furnishing his formal syntax with an adequate semantics which is free from presuppositions which have entered into modern interpretations of Aristotle’s theory via predicate logic. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S1755020309990396 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2789324127</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S1755020309990396</cupid><sourcerecordid>2789324127</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-4fddbf65a18514fe50b7ced4a6eae6928b9a8520f5ec43e0aec055bc5d39d0af3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kDFPwzAQhS0EEqXwA9giMQfOdhzHY4hSsBQcqQkLi-XENmpFaXHagX9PSisYENOd7r73nvQQusZwiwHzuwZzxoAABSEEUJGeoMn-FAPB-PRnB3qOLoZhCZASQrMJ4rmKpGpL1cha5VVUlfJeyZeoKZ9y1cqiiWb1PMrnsmnrtqzkiFf1gywu0Zk3b4O7Os4pep6VbfEYf3_zKu4p5ts48dZ2PmUGZwwn3jHoeO9sYlJnXCpI1gmTMQKeuT6hDozrgbGuZ5YKC8bTKbo5-G7C-mPnhq1ernfhfYzUhGeCkgQTPlL4QPVhPQzBeb0Ji5UJnxqD3vej__QzauhRY1ZdWNhX92v9v-oLP8thtQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2789324127</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>AN INTENSIONAL LEIBNIZ SEMANTICS FOR ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>GLASHOFF, KLAUS</creator><creatorcontrib>GLASHOFF, KLAUS</creatorcontrib><description>Since Frege’s predicate logical transcription of Aristotelian categorical logic, the standard semantics of Aristotelian logic considers terms as standing for sets of individuals. From a philosophical standpoint, this extensional model poses problems: There exist serious doubts that Aristotle’s terms were meant to refer always to sets, that is, entities composed of individuals. Classical philosophy up to Leibniz and Kant had a different view on this question—they looked at terms as standing for concepts (“Begriffe”). In 1972, Corcoran presented a formal system for Aristotelian logic containing a calculus of natural deduction, while, with respect to semantics, he still made use of an extensional interpretation. In this paper we deal with a simple intensional semantics for Corcoran’s syntax—intensional in the sense that no individuals are needed for the construction of a complete Tarski model of Aristotelian syntax. Instead, we view concepts as containing or excluding other, “higher” concepts—corresponding to the idea which Leibniz used in the construction of his characteristic numbers. Thus, this paper is an addendum to Corcoran’s work, furnishing his formal syntax with an adequate semantics which is free from presuppositions which have entered into modern interpretations of Aristotle’s theory via predicate logic.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1755-0203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1755-0211</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S1755020309990396</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Deduction ; Logic ; Philosophy ; Predicate logic ; Semantics ; Syntax</subject><ispartof>The review of symbolic logic, 2010-06, Vol.3 (2), p.262-272</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-4fddbf65a18514fe50b7ced4a6eae6928b9a8520f5ec43e0aec055bc5d39d0af3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-4fddbf65a18514fe50b7ced4a6eae6928b9a8520f5ec43e0aec055bc5d39d0af3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1755020309990396/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,27924,27925,55628</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>GLASHOFF, KLAUS</creatorcontrib><title>AN INTENSIONAL LEIBNIZ SEMANTICS FOR ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC</title><title>The review of symbolic logic</title><addtitle>The Review of Symbolic Logic</addtitle><description>Since Frege’s predicate logical transcription of Aristotelian categorical logic, the standard semantics of Aristotelian logic considers terms as standing for sets of individuals. From a philosophical standpoint, this extensional model poses problems: There exist serious doubts that Aristotle’s terms were meant to refer always to sets, that is, entities composed of individuals. Classical philosophy up to Leibniz and Kant had a different view on this question—they looked at terms as standing for concepts (“Begriffe”). In 1972, Corcoran presented a formal system for Aristotelian logic containing a calculus of natural deduction, while, with respect to semantics, he still made use of an extensional interpretation. In this paper we deal with a simple intensional semantics for Corcoran’s syntax—intensional in the sense that no individuals are needed for the construction of a complete Tarski model of Aristotelian syntax. Instead, we view concepts as containing or excluding other, “higher” concepts—corresponding to the idea which Leibniz used in the construction of his characteristic numbers. Thus, this paper is an addendum to Corcoran’s work, furnishing his formal syntax with an adequate semantics which is free from presuppositions which have entered into modern interpretations of Aristotle’s theory via predicate logic.</description><subject>Deduction</subject><subject>Logic</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Predicate logic</subject><subject>Semantics</subject><subject>Syntax</subject><issn>1755-0203</issn><issn>1755-0211</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kDFPwzAQhS0EEqXwA9giMQfOdhzHY4hSsBQcqQkLi-XENmpFaXHagX9PSisYENOd7r73nvQQusZwiwHzuwZzxoAABSEEUJGeoMn-FAPB-PRnB3qOLoZhCZASQrMJ4rmKpGpL1cha5VVUlfJeyZeoKZ9y1cqiiWb1PMrnsmnrtqzkiFf1gywu0Zk3b4O7Os4pep6VbfEYf3_zKu4p5ts48dZ2PmUGZwwn3jHoeO9sYlJnXCpI1gmTMQKeuT6hDozrgbGuZ5YKC8bTKbo5-G7C-mPnhq1ernfhfYzUhGeCkgQTPlL4QPVhPQzBeb0Ji5UJnxqD3vej__QzauhRY1ZdWNhX92v9v-oLP8thtQ</recordid><startdate>201006</startdate><enddate>201006</enddate><creator>GLASHOFF, KLAUS</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201006</creationdate><title>AN INTENSIONAL LEIBNIZ SEMANTICS FOR ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC</title><author>GLASHOFF, KLAUS</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c317t-4fddbf65a18514fe50b7ced4a6eae6928b9a8520f5ec43e0aec055bc5d39d0af3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Deduction</topic><topic>Logic</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Predicate logic</topic><topic>Semantics</topic><topic>Syntax</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>GLASHOFF, KLAUS</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The review of symbolic logic</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>GLASHOFF, KLAUS</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>AN INTENSIONAL LEIBNIZ SEMANTICS FOR ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC</atitle><jtitle>The review of symbolic logic</jtitle><addtitle>The Review of Symbolic Logic</addtitle><date>2010-06</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>262</spage><epage>272</epage><pages>262-272</pages><issn>1755-0203</issn><eissn>1755-0211</eissn><abstract>Since Frege’s predicate logical transcription of Aristotelian categorical logic, the standard semantics of Aristotelian logic considers terms as standing for sets of individuals. From a philosophical standpoint, this extensional model poses problems: There exist serious doubts that Aristotle’s terms were meant to refer always to sets, that is, entities composed of individuals. Classical philosophy up to Leibniz and Kant had a different view on this question—they looked at terms as standing for concepts (“Begriffe”). In 1972, Corcoran presented a formal system for Aristotelian logic containing a calculus of natural deduction, while, with respect to semantics, he still made use of an extensional interpretation. In this paper we deal with a simple intensional semantics for Corcoran’s syntax—intensional in the sense that no individuals are needed for the construction of a complete Tarski model of Aristotelian syntax. Instead, we view concepts as containing or excluding other, “higher” concepts—corresponding to the idea which Leibniz used in the construction of his characteristic numbers. Thus, this paper is an addendum to Corcoran’s work, furnishing his formal syntax with an adequate semantics which is free from presuppositions which have entered into modern interpretations of Aristotle’s theory via predicate logic.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S1755020309990396</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1755-0203 |
ispartof | The review of symbolic logic, 2010-06, Vol.3 (2), p.262-272 |
issn | 1755-0203 1755-0211 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2789324127 |
source | Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Deduction Logic Philosophy Predicate logic Semantics Syntax |
title | AN INTENSIONAL LEIBNIZ SEMANTICS FOR ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T11%3A13%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=AN%20INTENSIONAL%20LEIBNIZ%20SEMANTICS%20FOR%20ARISTOTELIAN%20LOGIC&rft.jtitle=The%20review%20of%20symbolic%20logic&rft.au=GLASHOFF,%20KLAUS&rft.date=2010-06&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=262&rft.epage=272&rft.pages=262-272&rft.issn=1755-0203&rft.eissn=1755-0211&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S1755020309990396&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2789324127%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2789324127&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S1755020309990396&rfr_iscdi=true |