Is there any worth to reading Aristotle's works on logic (other than historical)?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












What I mean is that presumably a topic such as logic would have, at this point, been so advanced that the ancestral works are unnecessary.



I would read it for pleasure, but have they been ultimately rendered obsolete?










share|improve this question

















  • 1




    "Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
    – Conifold
    2 hours ago











  • It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
    – virmaior
    1 hour ago














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












What I mean is that presumably a topic such as logic would have, at this point, been so advanced that the ancestral works are unnecessary.



I would read it for pleasure, but have they been ultimately rendered obsolete?










share|improve this question

















  • 1




    "Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
    – Conifold
    2 hours ago











  • It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
    – virmaior
    1 hour ago












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











What I mean is that presumably a topic such as logic would have, at this point, been so advanced that the ancestral works are unnecessary.



I would read it for pleasure, but have they been ultimately rendered obsolete?










share|improve this question













What I mean is that presumably a topic such as logic would have, at this point, been so advanced that the ancestral works are unnecessary.



I would read it for pleasure, but have they been ultimately rendered obsolete?







logic aristotle






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 6 hours ago









Sermo

363




363







  • 1




    "Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
    – Conifold
    2 hours ago











  • It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
    – virmaior
    1 hour ago












  • 1




    "Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
    – Conifold
    2 hours ago











  • It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
    – virmaior
    1 hour ago







1




1




"Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
– Conifold
2 hours ago





"Historical" has a very broad reach in philosophy. In science when things are reformatted one can mostly get by with the latest version. But if you want to understand the modern philosophical debates about logic, mathematics, etc., you should at least be familiar with Aristotle's syllogistic, semantics and modal ideas. Perhaps secondary literature allows accomplishing it faster than reading the source, but skipping it is not really viable.
– Conifold
2 hours ago













It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
– virmaior
1 hour ago




It's a bit hard to answer the question as worded, because there appears to be an assumption that Aristotle's logic is a monolithic entity. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic that have been largely surpassed or replaced by easier to understand bits of the same thing? yes. Are there parts of Aristotle's logic where his understanding seems outright confused? yes (with respect to for instance a problem with the use of necessity and possibility in the ship battle). Are there parts where it's one active solution among many? yes.
– virmaior
1 hour ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













No, Aristotle's logic has not been rendered obsolete or disproved.



See, for example:



  • Łukasiewicz, Jan. 1957. Aristotle's syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    &
    Thomas Greenwood. “The Unity of Logic,” Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 8 (January 1, 1945): 457–470.
    from this answer to the question "Can all mathematical reasoning be translated into traditional logic?"


  • Eyal Mozes, “A Deductive Database Based on Aristotelian Logic,” Journal of Symbolic Computation 7, no. 5 (May 1, 1989): 487–507.
    from this question






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Logic means something different now than what it once did. In classical philosophy one primary branch of philosophy investigated the cosmos, one investigated human life, and a third investigated the forms of reasoning used in the other two: physikē, ethikē, logikē (See Diog. Laert. for variants on this schema.)



    When an older writer (or a modern classicist) refers to Aristotle's "Logic" they mean the entire Organon, the first five books of the Aristotelian corpus. These are, in effect, Aristotle's philosophy itself!



    Now, since Frege (roughly) there has been an increasing trend to use "logic" to refer to something like predicate logic or propositional logic: in Aristotle this would correspond to his theory of the syllogism (which is summarized here and there but most extensive in the Analytics). Three thoughts:



    (1) Yes, in a sense the syllogism is something like a primitive version of set theory so most people interested in math and philosophy aren't going to find Aristotle's syllogism-theory a huge revelation.



    (2) However, it isn't the "inner content" of syllogistic inferences Aristotle focuses on - the actual focus is on how syllogisms relate to things that are not syllogisms, including the subjects and predicates they take as arguments, fields of knowledge where syllogistic deductions are valid, licit non-deductive arguments, and illicit deductive fallacies.



    (3) All of this machinery is necessary to understand any of the larger issues of Aristotle's physics and ethics - including what subjects are "sciences" (i.e., use deductive inference) - and also the narrower problem of how to interpret difficult passages.



    So the problem isn't really that if you don't understand syllogistic logic, you won't understand how to make a deductive inference; the problem is that if you don't understand how Aristotle's theory of the syllogism fits in with Aristotle's theory of the proposition, Aristotle's ontology, etc. (the "Logic") most of the rest of Aristotle will fly over your head. I've done it both ways and Aristotle definitely makes more sense after you've read the Organon.



    (And the same goes for many later philosophers who liberally borrow Aristotle's terminology and assumptions even when they profess to be attacking him. See the essay "Aristotle as cuttlefish" for one of the funnier illustrations; historians of philosophical grammar [Itkonen, Padley] are particularly good at documenting this conceptual debt. So the same point applies even to say, Kant; a lot of the terminology and preoccupations will make no sense if you aren't familiar with Aristotle. In fact Kant is a particularly good example; "apodictic certainty" is difficult to define but easily understood once you understand that apodexein = "to demonstrate" [by syllogism], in Aristotle's sense.)






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.
























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Aristotle's Rhetoric was fun to read... it isn't long, and it offers a "classical" perspective on what makes a convincing (not just correct) argument. This was the work that introduced me to the notion of a slight, which, as it turns out, is a very powerful notion indeed.






      share|improve this answer




















      • Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
        – elliot svensson
        5 hours ago










      Your Answer







      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "265"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f56277%2fis-there-any-worth-to-reading-aristotles-works-on-logic-other-than-historical%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      3
      down vote













      No, Aristotle's logic has not been rendered obsolete or disproved.



      See, for example:



      • Łukasiewicz, Jan. 1957. Aristotle's syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
        &
        Thomas Greenwood. “The Unity of Logic,” Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 8 (January 1, 1945): 457–470.
        from this answer to the question "Can all mathematical reasoning be translated into traditional logic?"


      • Eyal Mozes, “A Deductive Database Based on Aristotelian Logic,” Journal of Symbolic Computation 7, no. 5 (May 1, 1989): 487–507.
        from this question






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        3
        down vote













        No, Aristotle's logic has not been rendered obsolete or disproved.



        See, for example:



        • Łukasiewicz, Jan. 1957. Aristotle's syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
          &
          Thomas Greenwood. “The Unity of Logic,” Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 8 (January 1, 1945): 457–470.
          from this answer to the question "Can all mathematical reasoning be translated into traditional logic?"


        • Eyal Mozes, “A Deductive Database Based on Aristotelian Logic,” Journal of Symbolic Computation 7, no. 5 (May 1, 1989): 487–507.
          from this question






        share|improve this answer






















          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          No, Aristotle's logic has not been rendered obsolete or disproved.



          See, for example:



          • Łukasiewicz, Jan. 1957. Aristotle's syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
            &
            Thomas Greenwood. “The Unity of Logic,” Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 8 (January 1, 1945): 457–470.
            from this answer to the question "Can all mathematical reasoning be translated into traditional logic?"


          • Eyal Mozes, “A Deductive Database Based on Aristotelian Logic,” Journal of Symbolic Computation 7, no. 5 (May 1, 1989): 487–507.
            from this question






          share|improve this answer












          No, Aristotle's logic has not been rendered obsolete or disproved.



          See, for example:



          • Łukasiewicz, Jan. 1957. Aristotle's syllogistic from the standpoint of modern formal logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
            &
            Thomas Greenwood. “The Unity of Logic,” Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 8 (January 1, 1945): 457–470.
            from this answer to the question "Can all mathematical reasoning be translated into traditional logic?"


          • Eyal Mozes, “A Deductive Database Based on Aristotelian Logic,” Journal of Symbolic Computation 7, no. 5 (May 1, 1989): 487–507.
            from this question







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 3 hours ago









          Geremia

          3,88911125




          3,88911125




















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              Logic means something different now than what it once did. In classical philosophy one primary branch of philosophy investigated the cosmos, one investigated human life, and a third investigated the forms of reasoning used in the other two: physikē, ethikē, logikē (See Diog. Laert. for variants on this schema.)



              When an older writer (or a modern classicist) refers to Aristotle's "Logic" they mean the entire Organon, the first five books of the Aristotelian corpus. These are, in effect, Aristotle's philosophy itself!



              Now, since Frege (roughly) there has been an increasing trend to use "logic" to refer to something like predicate logic or propositional logic: in Aristotle this would correspond to his theory of the syllogism (which is summarized here and there but most extensive in the Analytics). Three thoughts:



              (1) Yes, in a sense the syllogism is something like a primitive version of set theory so most people interested in math and philosophy aren't going to find Aristotle's syllogism-theory a huge revelation.



              (2) However, it isn't the "inner content" of syllogistic inferences Aristotle focuses on - the actual focus is on how syllogisms relate to things that are not syllogisms, including the subjects and predicates they take as arguments, fields of knowledge where syllogistic deductions are valid, licit non-deductive arguments, and illicit deductive fallacies.



              (3) All of this machinery is necessary to understand any of the larger issues of Aristotle's physics and ethics - including what subjects are "sciences" (i.e., use deductive inference) - and also the narrower problem of how to interpret difficult passages.



              So the problem isn't really that if you don't understand syllogistic logic, you won't understand how to make a deductive inference; the problem is that if you don't understand how Aristotle's theory of the syllogism fits in with Aristotle's theory of the proposition, Aristotle's ontology, etc. (the "Logic") most of the rest of Aristotle will fly over your head. I've done it both ways and Aristotle definitely makes more sense after you've read the Organon.



              (And the same goes for many later philosophers who liberally borrow Aristotle's terminology and assumptions even when they profess to be attacking him. See the essay "Aristotle as cuttlefish" for one of the funnier illustrations; historians of philosophical grammar [Itkonen, Padley] are particularly good at documenting this conceptual debt. So the same point applies even to say, Kant; a lot of the terminology and preoccupations will make no sense if you aren't familiar with Aristotle. In fact Kant is a particularly good example; "apodictic certainty" is difficult to define but easily understood once you understand that apodexein = "to demonstrate" [by syllogism], in Aristotle's sense.)






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                up vote
                1
                down vote













                Logic means something different now than what it once did. In classical philosophy one primary branch of philosophy investigated the cosmos, one investigated human life, and a third investigated the forms of reasoning used in the other two: physikē, ethikē, logikē (See Diog. Laert. for variants on this schema.)



                When an older writer (or a modern classicist) refers to Aristotle's "Logic" they mean the entire Organon, the first five books of the Aristotelian corpus. These are, in effect, Aristotle's philosophy itself!



                Now, since Frege (roughly) there has been an increasing trend to use "logic" to refer to something like predicate logic or propositional logic: in Aristotle this would correspond to his theory of the syllogism (which is summarized here and there but most extensive in the Analytics). Three thoughts:



                (1) Yes, in a sense the syllogism is something like a primitive version of set theory so most people interested in math and philosophy aren't going to find Aristotle's syllogism-theory a huge revelation.



                (2) However, it isn't the "inner content" of syllogistic inferences Aristotle focuses on - the actual focus is on how syllogisms relate to things that are not syllogisms, including the subjects and predicates they take as arguments, fields of knowledge where syllogistic deductions are valid, licit non-deductive arguments, and illicit deductive fallacies.



                (3) All of this machinery is necessary to understand any of the larger issues of Aristotle's physics and ethics - including what subjects are "sciences" (i.e., use deductive inference) - and also the narrower problem of how to interpret difficult passages.



                So the problem isn't really that if you don't understand syllogistic logic, you won't understand how to make a deductive inference; the problem is that if you don't understand how Aristotle's theory of the syllogism fits in with Aristotle's theory of the proposition, Aristotle's ontology, etc. (the "Logic") most of the rest of Aristotle will fly over your head. I've done it both ways and Aristotle definitely makes more sense after you've read the Organon.



                (And the same goes for many later philosophers who liberally borrow Aristotle's terminology and assumptions even when they profess to be attacking him. See the essay "Aristotle as cuttlefish" for one of the funnier illustrations; historians of philosophical grammar [Itkonen, Padley] are particularly good at documenting this conceptual debt. So the same point applies even to say, Kant; a lot of the terminology and preoccupations will make no sense if you aren't familiar with Aristotle. In fact Kant is a particularly good example; "apodictic certainty" is difficult to define but easily understood once you understand that apodexein = "to demonstrate" [by syllogism], in Aristotle's sense.)






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.



















                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote









                  Logic means something different now than what it once did. In classical philosophy one primary branch of philosophy investigated the cosmos, one investigated human life, and a third investigated the forms of reasoning used in the other two: physikē, ethikē, logikē (See Diog. Laert. for variants on this schema.)



                  When an older writer (or a modern classicist) refers to Aristotle's "Logic" they mean the entire Organon, the first five books of the Aristotelian corpus. These are, in effect, Aristotle's philosophy itself!



                  Now, since Frege (roughly) there has been an increasing trend to use "logic" to refer to something like predicate logic or propositional logic: in Aristotle this would correspond to his theory of the syllogism (which is summarized here and there but most extensive in the Analytics). Three thoughts:



                  (1) Yes, in a sense the syllogism is something like a primitive version of set theory so most people interested in math and philosophy aren't going to find Aristotle's syllogism-theory a huge revelation.



                  (2) However, it isn't the "inner content" of syllogistic inferences Aristotle focuses on - the actual focus is on how syllogisms relate to things that are not syllogisms, including the subjects and predicates they take as arguments, fields of knowledge where syllogistic deductions are valid, licit non-deductive arguments, and illicit deductive fallacies.



                  (3) All of this machinery is necessary to understand any of the larger issues of Aristotle's physics and ethics - including what subjects are "sciences" (i.e., use deductive inference) - and also the narrower problem of how to interpret difficult passages.



                  So the problem isn't really that if you don't understand syllogistic logic, you won't understand how to make a deductive inference; the problem is that if you don't understand how Aristotle's theory of the syllogism fits in with Aristotle's theory of the proposition, Aristotle's ontology, etc. (the "Logic") most of the rest of Aristotle will fly over your head. I've done it both ways and Aristotle definitely makes more sense after you've read the Organon.



                  (And the same goes for many later philosophers who liberally borrow Aristotle's terminology and assumptions even when they profess to be attacking him. See the essay "Aristotle as cuttlefish" for one of the funnier illustrations; historians of philosophical grammar [Itkonen, Padley] are particularly good at documenting this conceptual debt. So the same point applies even to say, Kant; a lot of the terminology and preoccupations will make no sense if you aren't familiar with Aristotle. In fact Kant is a particularly good example; "apodictic certainty" is difficult to define but easily understood once you understand that apodexein = "to demonstrate" [by syllogism], in Aristotle's sense.)






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  Logic means something different now than what it once did. In classical philosophy one primary branch of philosophy investigated the cosmos, one investigated human life, and a third investigated the forms of reasoning used in the other two: physikē, ethikē, logikē (See Diog. Laert. for variants on this schema.)



                  When an older writer (or a modern classicist) refers to Aristotle's "Logic" they mean the entire Organon, the first five books of the Aristotelian corpus. These are, in effect, Aristotle's philosophy itself!



                  Now, since Frege (roughly) there has been an increasing trend to use "logic" to refer to something like predicate logic or propositional logic: in Aristotle this would correspond to his theory of the syllogism (which is summarized here and there but most extensive in the Analytics). Three thoughts:



                  (1) Yes, in a sense the syllogism is something like a primitive version of set theory so most people interested in math and philosophy aren't going to find Aristotle's syllogism-theory a huge revelation.



                  (2) However, it isn't the "inner content" of syllogistic inferences Aristotle focuses on - the actual focus is on how syllogisms relate to things that are not syllogisms, including the subjects and predicates they take as arguments, fields of knowledge where syllogistic deductions are valid, licit non-deductive arguments, and illicit deductive fallacies.



                  (3) All of this machinery is necessary to understand any of the larger issues of Aristotle's physics and ethics - including what subjects are "sciences" (i.e., use deductive inference) - and also the narrower problem of how to interpret difficult passages.



                  So the problem isn't really that if you don't understand syllogistic logic, you won't understand how to make a deductive inference; the problem is that if you don't understand how Aristotle's theory of the syllogism fits in with Aristotle's theory of the proposition, Aristotle's ontology, etc. (the "Logic") most of the rest of Aristotle will fly over your head. I've done it both ways and Aristotle definitely makes more sense after you've read the Organon.



                  (And the same goes for many later philosophers who liberally borrow Aristotle's terminology and assumptions even when they profess to be attacking him. See the essay "Aristotle as cuttlefish" for one of the funnier illustrations; historians of philosophical grammar [Itkonen, Padley] are particularly good at documenting this conceptual debt. So the same point applies even to say, Kant; a lot of the terminology and preoccupations will make no sense if you aren't familiar with Aristotle. In fact Kant is a particularly good example; "apodictic certainty" is difficult to define but easily understood once you understand that apodexein = "to demonstrate" [by syllogism], in Aristotle's sense.)







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 1 hour ago









                  guest1806

                  411




                  411




                  New contributor




                  guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote













                      Aristotle's Rhetoric was fun to read... it isn't long, and it offers a "classical" perspective on what makes a convincing (not just correct) argument. This was the work that introduced me to the notion of a slight, which, as it turns out, is a very powerful notion indeed.






                      share|improve this answer




















                      • Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
                        – elliot svensson
                        5 hours ago














                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote













                      Aristotle's Rhetoric was fun to read... it isn't long, and it offers a "classical" perspective on what makes a convincing (not just correct) argument. This was the work that introduced me to the notion of a slight, which, as it turns out, is a very powerful notion indeed.






                      share|improve this answer




















                      • Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
                        – elliot svensson
                        5 hours ago












                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote










                      up vote
                      0
                      down vote









                      Aristotle's Rhetoric was fun to read... it isn't long, and it offers a "classical" perspective on what makes a convincing (not just correct) argument. This was the work that introduced me to the notion of a slight, which, as it turns out, is a very powerful notion indeed.






                      share|improve this answer












                      Aristotle's Rhetoric was fun to read... it isn't long, and it offers a "classical" perspective on what makes a convincing (not just correct) argument. This was the work that introduced me to the notion of a slight, which, as it turns out, is a very powerful notion indeed.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered 5 hours ago









                      elliot svensson

                      2,20817




                      2,20817











                      • Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
                        – elliot svensson
                        5 hours ago
















                      • Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
                        – elliot svensson
                        5 hours ago















                      Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
                      – elliot svensson
                      5 hours ago




                      Just noticed that you specified works on logic...
                      – elliot svensson
                      5 hours ago

















                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f56277%2fis-there-any-worth-to-reading-aristotles-works-on-logic-other-than-historical%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                      How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?