Talk:Organon

Source for claim
The text I am reorganising has the claim:
 * his publishers (e.g. Andronicus of Rhodes in 50 BC) collected these works and may have even attributed some affixes from Theophrastus or Eudemos (e.g. the 10.-15. chapters of Categories are maybe written by Theophrastus) to him.

I've removed the above until I have a source for it. --- Charles Stewart 15:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Postscript The claim I mean is the existence of work by [Theophrastus]] or Eudemos in the categories. --- Charles Stewart 15:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added back a date with reference for Andronicus. For the "affixes" claim we might want to ask Gubbubu, who is the editor that added it. Paul August &#9742; 19:47, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Other omitted text
The following text also added by Gubbubu (see above) has also been omitted:


 * "Scientific relevancy of Organon is so great: in that we can find the first ontological category theory (relevant in some branches of intensional logic), the first development of formal logic, the first known serious scientific inquisitions on the theory of (formal and informal) reasoning, the foundations of modal logic, and some antecedents of methodology of sciences.:

Was this intentional? The writing could be cleaned up a bit, but if accurate this information seems relevant, but it should probably be sourced as well. In any case some assessment of the historical importance of the work would be good. Paul August &#9742; 19:47, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I moved this text to Aristotelian logic (I thought my edit summary said that, but I guess I was rather vague). I've been trying to make this article very narrow: what is in the books, how they are organised, how they came to be organised, with exegesis of their comment and broader discussions of their significance going in the other two articles. --- Charles Stewart 20:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that. As long as the content hasn't gone missing &mdash; that was my main concern &mdash; I'm satisfied ;-) I've added a bit to the lead to say that "historical significance" is discussed in Aristotelian logic. By the way the article is much improved. Paul August &#9742; 21:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Some questionable assertions
1. "The Organon was not always popular during the Hellenistic era. Stoic logic was predominant, particularly the work of Chrysippus (none of whose work has survived)." This is a bit sweeping-assertionish, of the sort you might find in a school essay. "the Norman conquest was a Good Thing, but some people weren't keen on it".

2. "In the Enlightenment there was a revival of interest in logic as the basis of rational enquiry, and a number of texts, most successfully the Port-Royal Logic, polished Aristotelian term logic for pedagogy. "  What does the last bit mean? In what sense was there a "revival" of interest in logic, in the sense that there was less interest before? This is highly questionable in light of the extensive work in the 16C counter-reformation.

3. "During this period, while the logic certainbly was based on that of Aristotle, Aristotle's writings themselves were less often the basis of study. There was a tendency in this period to regard logical inference as trivial, which in turn no doubt stifled innovation in this area." This is true of early modern writing, but not altogether true (e.g. the work of Hamilton).

4. "These examples illustrate the general tendency during the period between the 13th century and the 19th century to accept without question the work of Aristotle." This is not true, and moreover contradicts the earlier assertion that "Aristotle's writings themselves were less often the basis of study".

5. " The dogmatism created by the Scholastics in favor of Aristotle took a long time to disappear." More 1066 and-all-that!!

6. " There is, however, a mostly pedagogical interest in term logic deriving from its close structure to the actual forms of reasoning encountered in natural language." In what sense "pedagogical"??

Dbuckner 12:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

transferred text
Rick Norwood writes "you may want to correct the following paragraph from Aristotelian logic":


 * There was a tendency in this period to regard logical inference as trivial, which in turn no doubt stifled innovation in this area. Immanuel Kant thought that there was nothing else to invent after the work of Aristotle, and a famous logic historian called Karl von Prantl claimed that any logician who said anything new about logic was "confused, stupid or perverse." These examples illustrate the general tendency during the period between the 13th century and the 19th century to accept without question the work of Aristotle. He had already become known by the Scholastics (medieval Christian scholars) as "The Philosopher." The dogmatism created by the Scholastics in favor of Aristotle took a long time to disappear.

It is beyond correction. It betrays a complete ignorance of anything that happened between the 17th and the 19th century. Which was why I slapped the warning template on that article. One could correct it, but there is so much of this stuff it would be pointless. Wikipedia seems to be good at some things, bad at others (philosophy in particular). Dbuckner 06:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If I suspected for a moment you really believed in what you say, then you would have long since departed. But since you're still here, I should say it's useful to have a critical eye on the text, so thanks for that. Still, if you can't bring yourself to fix it, then someone else will be happy to. Lucidish 16:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "These examples illustrate the general tendency during the early modern period to accept with little question the work of Aristotle."

Unfortunately, this does not make the paragraph more accurate. Quite the opposite. Here is an early modern source that will give you an idea of the early modern view on Aristotle. Dbuckner 21:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "The web site you are trying to access has exceeded its allocated data transfer."
 * My knowledge here is quite slim, and so my knowledge-base is quite likely not enough to aid in making the repairs. I've contacted the original author of the text, and hope he will show up here shortly.
 * On the subject, the only thing that I personally know of that broke with the Aristotelian tradition is on the topic of infinitessimals and the continuous. John Bell writes: "The early modern period saw the spread of knowledge in Europe of ancient geometry, particularly that of Archimedes, and a loosening of the Aristotelian grip on thinking". Do you have other things in mind as well? Lucidish 23:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea that the early modern period represented a complete break with the scholastic or Aristotelian tradition is something most undergraduates will learn if they are studying the early modern period. Any textbook dealing with Locke will cover this.  For example, the first page of Pringle Pattison's introduction to the Essay:


 * "We still meet in his [Locke's] pages the attitude of mind familiar to us in Bacon and other pioneers of modern philosophy, the same disparaging criticism of scholastic philosophy and the Aristotelian logic, the same revolt against tradition and authority in all its forms".


 * What you and the author you mentioned need to do is to read some elementary books on the history of philosophy (or enroll at a university or similar institution that deals with these matters, if you are sufficiently interested). What you shouldn't be doing (if I may suggest it) is trying to write encyclopedia articles on the subject.  Dbuckner 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My edit was not one which was meant to assert much, but rather to quell what I saw as the most glaring of absurdities (having to do with 18th and 19th centuries, in which the development of calculus was a prime example). The original author, again, has been invited to defend their position, out of charity. If they do not, then a full and complete edit may be done.
 * Your suggestion in this particular vein has been noted and discarded, mostly because you obviously didn't understand the point of the edit. Your suggestion, taken in a more general vein, has long been made, and long been discarded. You have a tendency to engage in POV pushing, even after having been presented with evidence which emphatically refutes you on your own terms, as with the Blackburn affair; or cogent counter-arguments are present, as with the "racism" affair. Ignorance is excusable, but a systematic disregard for reason is not: the former may have its errors mended, while the latter commits itself to error out of a love of it; and the latter is, of course, the real and lasting threat to any educational resource. Lucidish 17:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Edited again. Still waiting for Charles Stewart. Lucidish 19:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what are you going on about? Your edit said "These examples illustrate the general tendency during the early modern period to accept with little question the work of Aristotle. "  I commented that not only was this wrong, it was very wrong.  I'm also moving this back to the the philosophy talk page.  It is relevant not to Aristotle's logic but to the whole early modern thing.  Dbuckner 19:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that's just wrong, but I suppose having the same conversation repeated won't hurt anyone. Lucidish

Books
How is a comparison of the quality of libraries in Muslim and non-Muslim Europe germane to the Organon?

"Lost in Western Europe"
"Aristotle's works on logic are the only significant works of Aristotle that were lost in Western Europe; his other books were ignored in Western Europe"

Should 'lost' say something else? Njál 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Concise remarks on De interpretatione as being at the origin of the logical square and of modal logic
The logical square, also called square of opposition or square of Apuleius has its origin in the four marked sentences to be employed in syllogistic reasoning: Every man is white, the universal affirmative and its negation Not every man is white (or Some men are not white), the particular negative on the one hand, Some men are white, the particular affirmative and its negation No man is white, the universal negative on the other. Robert Blanché published with Vrin his Structures intellectuelles in 1966 and since then  many scholars think that the logical square representing four values should be replaced by the logical hexagon which by representing six values is a more potent figure because it has the power to explain more things about logic and natural language. The study of the four propositions constituting the square is found in Chapter 7 and its appendix Chapter 8. Most important also is the immediately following Chapter 9 dealing with the problem of future contingents. This chapter and the subsequent ones are at the origin of modal logic. Perhaps Blanché's hexagon is particularly useful in the domain of modal logic in so far as it explains clearly the nature and importance of the bilateral possible. The notion of bilateral possible is crucially important to understand both logic and natural language when applied to modal values. (Jean KemperN (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC))

http://erssab.u-bordeaux3.fr          here    http://www.grammar-and-logic.com/dossiers.php  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean KemperN (talk • contribs) 06:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(Jean KemperN (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC))

The article logical hexagon created by Gregbard
I have created an article for Logical hexagon and refactored a large amount of material contributed by User:Jean KemperNN. The material is wonderful, but I think it is more appropriate in its own article.Greg Bard (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC) (Jean KemperN (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC))

Latin titles
Sources for the titles in Latin: (a) Aristotelis Opera by August Immanuel Bekker, (b) Categoriae et Liber de interpretatione by Lorenzo Minio-Paluello, (c) Analytica Priora et Posteriora by William David Ross, (d) Topica et Sophistici elenchi by W. D. Ross. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't their original Greek titles be listed as well? 64.106.20.130 (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)