Publicado originalmente em 1974, este breve artigo de John Corcoran analisa algumas passagens da obra de Jan Lukasiewicz dedicada à silogística de Aristóteles, refutando a tese do lógico polonês de que os silogismos aristotélicos seriam condicionais universalizados.

In the present article we attempt to show that Aristotle's syllogistic is an underlying logiC which includes a natural deductive system and that it isn't an axiomatic theory as had previously been thought. We construct a mathematical model which reflects certain structural aspects of Aristotle's logic. We examine the relation of the model to the system of logic envisaged in scattered parts of Prior and Posterior Analytics. Our interpretation restores Aristotle's reputation as a logician of consummate imagination (...) and skill. Several attributions of shortcomings and logical errors to Aristotle are shown to be without merit. Aristotle's logic is found to be self-sufficient in several senses: his theory of deduction is logically sound in every detail. (His indirect deductions have been criticized, but incorrectly on our account.) Aristotle's logic presupposes no other logical concepts, not even those of propositional logic. The Aristotelian system is seen to be complete in the sense that every valid argument expressible in his system admits of a deduction within his deductive system: every semantically valid argument is deducible. (shrink)

This presentation of Aristotle's natural deduction system supplements earlier presentations and gives more historical evidence. Some fine-tunings resulted from conversations with Timothy Smiley, Charles Kahn, Josiah Gould, John Kearns,John Glanvillle, and William Parry.The criticism of Aristotle's theory of propositions found at the end of this 1974 presentation was retracted in Corcoran's 2009 HPL article "Aristotle's demonstrative logic".

Some of the more prominent contributions to the last fifty years of scholarship on Aristotle’s syllogistic suggest a conceptual framework under which the syllogistic is a logic, a system of inferential reasoning, only if it is not a theory, a system concerned with ontology or general facts. I argue that this a misleading interpretative framework. I begin by noting that the syllogistic exhibits one mark of contemporary logics: syllogisms are inferences and not implications. The debate on this question (...) has focused on the interpretation of indirect proof. But I argue that this evidence is neutral on the question, and offer new considerations in favor of the interpretation of syllogisms as inferences. I next note that the syllogistic exhibits one mark of theories: it employs a distinct underlying logic so to derive derivative structures from primitive structures. So the syllogistic is something sui generis: by our lights, it is arguably neither clearly a logic, nor clearly a theory. I also discuss whether the syllogistic is better represented as a natural deduction system, a sequent calculus or an axiomatic system, and conclude with a few remarks on the use of modern systems to represent historical logics. (shrink)

John Corcoran’s natural deduction system for Aristotle’s syllogistic is reconsidered.Though Corcoran is no doubt right in interpreting Aristotle as viewing syllogisms as arguments and in rejecting Lukasiewicz’s treatment in terms of conditional sentences, it is argued that Corcoran is wrong in thinking that the only alternative is to construe Barbara and Celarent as deduction rules in a natural deduction system.An alternative is presented that is technically more elegant and equally compatible with the texts.The abstract role assigned by tradition (...) and Lukasiewicz to Barbara and Celarent is retained.The two ‘ perfect syllogisms’ serve as ‘basic elements’ in the construction of an inductively defined set of valid syllogisms.The proposal departs from Lukasiewicz, and follows Corcoran, however, in construing the construction as one in natural deduction.The result is a sequent system with fewer rules and in which Barbara and Celarent serve as basic deductions.To compare the theory to Corcoran’s, his original is reformulated in current terms and generalized.It is shown to be equivalent to the proposed sequent system, and several variations are discussed.For all systems mentioned, a method of Henkin‐style completeness proofs is given that is more direct and intuitive than Corcoran’s original. (shrink)

Corcoran, John. 1974. Aristotelian Syllogisms: Valid arguments or true generalized conditionals?, Mind 83, 278–81. MR0532928 (58 #27178) This tightly-written and self-contained four-page paper must be studied and not just skimmed. It meticulously analyses quotations from Aristotle and Lukasiewicz to establish that Aristotle was using indirect deductions—as required by the natural-deduction interpretation—and not indirect proofs—as required by the axiomatic interpretation. Lukasiewicz was explicit and clear about the subtle fact that Aristotle’s practice could not be construed as correctly performed indirect proof. (...) Lukasiewicz evidence is presented fully; it is irrefutable. But, instead of considering the possibility that Aristotle’s discourses were not intended to express indirect proofs of universalized conditions presupposing axiomatic premises, Lukasiewicz came to the amazing conclusion that Aristotle did not understand indirect proof. This paper builds on the admirable Lukasiewicz scholarship to establish a conclusion diametrically opposed to the one Lukasiewicz asserted. This paper points out that if Aristotle had not been establishing an underlying logic but he was instead axiomatizing a theory of terms, Aristotelians could not claim for Aristotle the title Founder of Logic. People who take Euclid, Peano, and Zermelo to have first axiomatized geometry, arithmetic, and set theory, respectively, do not think that this qualifies them for the titles Founder of Geometry, Founder of Arithmetic, and Founder of Set Theory, respectively. Such people do think that this would qualify the three for the titles Founder of Axiomatic Geometry, Founder of Axiomatic Arithmetic, and Founder of Axiomatic Set Theory, respectively: titles that carry no honors in logic. Being the Founder of Axiomatic Term Theory would likewise carry no honors in the field of logic. CORRECTION: The paper inadvertently implied that Euclid was the first to axiomatize geometry. In order to understand Aristotle’s Analytics as a treatise on demonstration it helps to realize that axiomatized geometry was studied in Plato’s Academy when Aristotle was a student. Euclid was the author of the only ancient axiomatized geometry now available. (shrink)

This article studies the mathematical properties of two systems that model Aristotle's original syllogistic and the relationship obtaining between them. These systems are Corcoran's natural deduction syllogistic and ?ukasiewicz's axiomatization of the syllogistic. We show that by translating the former into a first-order theory, which we call T RD, we can establish a precise relationship between the two systems. We prove within the framework of first-order logic a number of logical properties about T RD that bear upon the same properties (...) of the natural deduction counterpart ? that is, Corcoran's system. Moreover, the first-order logic framework that we work with allows us to understand how complicated the semantics of the syllogistic is in providing us with examples of bizarre, unexpected interpretations of the syllogistic rules. Finally, we provide a first attempt at finding the structure of that semantics, reducing the search to the characterization of the class of models of T RD. (shrink)

Since the time of Aristotle's students, interpreters have considered Prior Analytics to be a treatise about deductive reasoning, more generally, about methods of determining the validity and invalidity of premise-conclusion arguments. People studied Prior Analytics in order to learn more about deductive reasoning and to improve their own reasoning skills. These interpreters understood Aristotle to be focusing on two epistemic processes: first, the process of establishing knowledge that a conclusion follows necessarily from a set of premises (that is, on the (...) epistemic process of extracting information implicit in explicitly given information) and, second, the process of establishing knowledge that a conclusion does not follow. Despite the overwhelming tendency to interpret the syllogistic as formal epistemology, it was not until the early 1970s that it occurred to anyone to think that Aristotle may have developed a theory of deductive reasoning with a well worked-out system of deductions comparable in rigor and precision with systems such as propositional logic or equational logic familiar from mathematical logic. When modern logicians in the 1920s and 1930s first turned their attention to the problem of understanding Aristotle's contribution to logic in modern terms, they were guided both by the Frege-Russell conception of logic as formal ontology and at the same time by a desire to protect Aristotle from possible charges of psychologism. They thought they saw Aristotle applying the informal axiomatic method to formal ontology, not as making the first steps into formal epistemology. They did not notice Aristotle's description of deductive reasoning. Ironically, the formal axiomatic method (in which one explicitly presents not merely the substantive axioms but also the deductive processes used to derive theorems from the axioms) is incipient in Aristotle's presentation. Partly in opposition to the axiomatic, ontically-oriented approach to Aristotle's logic and partly as a result of attempting to increase the degree of fit between interpretation and text, logicians in the 1970s working independently came to remarkably similar conclusions to the effect that Aristotle indeed had produced the first system of formal deductions. They concluded that Aristotle had analyzed the process of deduction and that his achievement included a semantically complete system of natural deductions including both direct and indirect deductions. Where the interpretations of the 1920s and 1930s attribute to Aristotle a system of propositions organized deductively, the interpretations of the 1970s attribute to Aristotle a system of deductions, or extended deductive discourses, organized epistemically. The logicians of the 1920s and 1930s take Aristotle to be deducing laws of logic from axiomatic origins; the logicians of the 1970s take Aristotle to be describing the process of deduction and in particular to be describing deductions themselves, both those deductions that are proofs based on axiomatic premises and those deductions that, though deductively cogent, do not establish the truth of the conclusion but only that the conclusion is implied by the premise-set. Thus, two very different and opposed interpretations had emerged, interestingly both products of modern logicians equipped with the theoretical apparatus of mathematical logic. The issue at stake between these two interpretations is the historical question of Aristotle's place in the history of logic and of his orientation in philosophy of logic. This paper affirms Aristotle's place as the founder of logic taken as formal epistemology, including the study of deductive reasoning. A by-product of this study of Aristotle's accomplishments in logic is a clarification of a distinction implicit in discourses among logicians--that between logic as formal ontology and logic as formal epistemology. (shrink)

In 1951 Lukasiewicz [[sic]] linked Aristotle's Prior Analytics with modern formal logic. This book attempts to analyze Aristotle's syllogistic theory in the light of Lukasiewcz's work and the whole tradition of classic interpretations of Aristotle's logic. The first of the book's five chapters shows that for Aristotle the syllogism is basically a relationship of terms couched in conditional form; a relationship of variables rather than concrete terms; and a relationship that sees S linked with P not by the copula but (...) by less metaphysical expressions. The classical S is P form is not Aristotelian at all but a much later renovation. The second chapter maintains that Aristotle distinguishes "relative necessity" from "absolute necessity." Aristotle himself ignores his own distinction at times and thus creates logical difficulties for himself. The oft-fought sea battle is fought again in this chapter. Chapter three deals with the controversial notions of "perfect" and "imperfect" syllogisms. The author asserts that by "perfect syllogism" Aristotle means self-evident syllogisms that serve as axioms for deducing other proofs. Chapters four and five deal with the figures of the syllogism and the syllogism as a deductive system respectively. Patzig concludes that Aristotle's syllogistic theory is purely formal in its structure and can only be properly understood if it is not tied to a metaphysics and converted into a philosophical logic. He denies that it is a universal logic, but rather sees it as a specialized theory of relations.--J. J. R. (shrink)

In the paper we examine the method of axiomatic rejection used to describe the set of nonvalid formulae of Aristotle's syllogistic. First we show that the condition which the system of syllogistic has to fulfil to be ompletely axiomatised, is identical to the condition for any first order theory to be used as a logic program. Than we study the connection between models used or refutation in a first order theory and rejected axioms for that theory. We show (...) that any formula of syllogistic enriched with classical connectives is decidable using models in the domain with three members. (shrink)

No Órganon Aristóteles descreve alguns esquemas dedutivos nos quais a presença de inconsistências não acarreta a trivialização da teoria lógica envolvida. Esta tese é corroborada por três diferentes situações teóricas estudadas por ele, as quais são apresentadas neste trabalho. Analizamos o esquema de inferência utilizado por Aristóteles no Protrepticus e o método de demonstração indireta para os silogismos categóricos. Ambos os métodos exemplificam como Aristóteles emprega estratégias de redução ao absurdo logicamente clássicas. Na sequência, discutimos os silogismos válidos a partir (...) de premissas opostas (contrárias e contraditórias) estudadas pelo Estagirita no Analytica Priora (B15). De acordo com o autor, os seguintes silogismos são válidos a partir de premissas opostas, nos quais letras latinas minúsculas denotam termos como sujeito e predicado, enquanto que letras latinas maiúsculas denotam proposições categóricas tal como na notação tradicional: (i) na segunda figura, Eba,Aba ` Eaa (Cesare), Aba, Eba ` Eaa (Camestres), Eba, I ba ` Oaa (Festino), e Aba,Oba ` Oaa (Baroco); (ii) na terceira, Eab,Aab ` Oaa (Felapton), Oab,Aab ` Oaa (Bocardo) e Eab, Iab ` Oaa (Ferison). Por fim, discutimos a passagem do Analytica Posteriora (A11) no qual Aristóteles enuncia que o Princípio de Não-Contradição não é, em geral, pressuposto de toda demonstração (silogismo científico), mas apenas daquelas nas quais a conclusão deve ser provada a partir do Princípio; o Estagirita enuncia que se um silogismo da primeira figura tiver o termo maior consistente, os outros termos da demonstração podem ser separadamente inconsistentes. Estes resultados permitem-nos propor uma interpretação de sua teoria dedutiva como uma teoria paraconsistente lato sensu. Primeiramente, efetuamos uma análise hermenêutica, avaliando seu significado lógico e a correlação desses resultados com outros aspectos da filosofia de Aristóteles. Em segundo lugar, consignamos uma interpretação dos silogismos aristotélicos a partir de premissas opostas à luz dos antilogismos propostos por Christine Ladd-Franklin em 1883, e da demonstração aristotélica com termos inconsistentes nas lógicas paraconsistentes Cn, 1 n !, introduzidas por da Costa em 1963. Esses dois aspectos não parecem ter sido ainda detalhadamente analisados na literatura. DOI:10.5007/1808-1711.2010v14n1p71. (shrink)

Studies of Aristotle’s syllogistic system, since Corcoran’s deductionist interpretation supplanted Łukasiewicz’ axiomaticist interpretation, misrepresent Aristotle’s logic in two important respects. Following Corcoran, they take indirect deduction to occur only once in a deduction discourse; they then obviate the system having a reductio rule. Second, they represent reduction as a deductive process for deriving ‘imperfect’ syllogisms from ‘perfect’ syllogisms to impose an axiomatic interpretation on the logic. Denying that Aristotle's logic admits of a reductio rule results from this (...) misrepresentation of reduction. This discussion shows that the defects imputed to Aristotle's logic, and systems devised to resolve them, result from misunderstanding reduction, which itself results from misapprehending Prior Analytics expressly to identify in a metadiscourse deduction rules and not deductions per se. (shrink)

Aristotle, who has come to the forefront with the significant contributions to the development of logic throughout the history, has been the source of different perspectives for his subsequent studies with his philosophical system and logic. Many thinkers and logicians, including Russell, have come face to face with Aristotle and his ideas, regardless of whether they are positive or negative. The aim of this study is to explain the meaning of Aristotle's syllogism theory from Russell's point of view. In (...) accordance with this aim, firstly the effects of the theory of syllogism on the development of logic and then Aristotle's own explanations are given. The study continues by examining the formal and contextual details of syllogism inferences from Russell's consideration. In the conclusion part, it is stated how studies in logic, which grew in size with the important contributions of Aristotle, reached a different point with the tradition in which Russell was involved. In the light of all these explanations, it will be seen that Aristotle and Russell look for ways to think correctly and consistently in their work, and they want to express the validity of inferences according to formal patterns. (shrink)

I use the Corcoran–Smiley interpretation of Aristotle's syllogistic as my starting point for an examination of the syllogistic from the vantage point of modern proof theory. I aim to show that fresh logical insights are afforded by a proof-theoretically more systematic account of all four figures. First I regiment the syllogisms in the Gentzen–Prawitz system of natural deduction, using the universal and existential quantifiers of standard first-order logic, and the usual formalizations of Aristotle's sentence-forms. I explain how the syllogistic (...) is a fragment of my system of Core Logic. Then I introduce my main innovation: the use of binary quantifiers, governed by introduction and elimination rules. The syllogisms in all four figures are re-proved in the binary system, and are thereby revealed as all on a par with each other. I conclude with some comments and results about grammatical generativity, ecthesis, perfect validity, skeletal validity and Aristotle's chain principle. (shrink)

The idea of rejection originated by Aristotle. The notion of rejection was introduced into formal logic by Łukasiewicz [20]. He applied it to complete syntactic characterization of deductive systems using an axiomatic method of rejection of propositions [22, 23]. The paper gives not only genesis, but also development and generalization of the notion of rejection. It also emphasizes the methodological approach to biaspectual axiomatic method of characterization of deductive systems as acceptance (asserted) systems and rejection (refutation) systems, introduced (...) by Łukasiewicz and developed by his student Słupecki, the pioneers of the method, which becomes relevant in modern approaches to logic. (shrink)

Some of the more prominent contributions to the last fifty years of scholarship on Aristotle’s syllogistic suggest a conceptual framework under which the syllogistic is a logic, a system of inferential reasoning, only if it is not a theory, a system concerned with ontology or general facts. I argue that this a misleading interpretative framework. I begin by noting that the syllogistic exhibits one mark of contemporary logics: syllogisms are inferences and not implications. The debate on this question (...) has focused on the interpretation of indirect proof. But I argue that this evidence is neutral on the question. Instead, I offer new considerations in favour of the interpretation of syllogisms as inferences. I next note that the syllogistic exhibits one mark of theories: it employs a distinct underlying logic so to derive derivative structures from primitive structures. So the syllogistic is something sui generis: by our lights, it is arguably neither clearly a logic, nor clearly a theory, but rather exhibits certain characteristic marks of logics and certain characteristic marks of theories. I conclude with a few remarks on the status of Aristotle as a founder of logic, and the use of modern systems to represent historical logics. (shrink)

This presentation includes a complete bibliography of John Corcoran’s publications relevant on Aristotle’s logic. The Sections I, II, III, and IV list respectively 23 articles, 44 abstracts, 3 books, and 11 reviews. Section I starts with two watershed articles published in 1972: the Philosophy & Phenomenological Research article—from Corcoran’s Philadelphia period that antedates his discovery of Aristotle’s natural deduction system—and the Journal of Symbolic Logic article—from his Buffalo period first reporting his original results. It ends with works published in (...) 2015. Some items are annotated as listed or with endnotes connecting them with other work and pointing out passages that, in retrospect, are seen to be misleading and in a few places erroneous. In addition, Section V, “Discussions”, is a nearly complete secondary bibliography of works describing, interpreting, extending, improving, supporting, and criticizing Corcoran’s work: 10 items published in the 1970s, 24 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s, 60 in the 2000s, and 70 in the current decade. The secondary bibliography is also annotated as listed or with endnotes: some simply quoting from the cited item, but several answering criticisms and identifying errors. Section VI, “Alternatives”, lists recent works on Aristotle’s logic oblivious of Corcoran’s research and, more generally in some cases, even of the Łukasiewicz-initiated tradition. As is evident from Section VII, “Acknowledgements”, Corcoran’s publications benefited from consultation with other scholars, most notably George Boger, Charles Kahn, John Mulhern, Mary Mulhern, Anthony Preus, Timothy Smiley, Michael Scanlan, Roberto Torretti, and Kevin Tracy. All of Corcoran’s Greek translations were done in collaboration with two or more classicists. Corcoran never published a sentence without discussing it with his colleagues and students. (shrink)

This volume offers to the English-speaking world a collection of important works by the eminent twentieth century logician, Jan Lukasiewicz, many of which are here translated into English for the first time. This edition differs significantly from the Polish edition which appeared in 1961—containing ten logic papers not appearing there and omitting articles primarily of interest to the Polish reader. In addition to writing in Polish, Lukasiewicz also published works in French, English, and notably in German, and sometimes translated his (...) own works from one language to another. One of the most valuable works on the history of logic is Lukasiewicz’ paper, "On the History of the Logic of Propositions". Lukasiewicz points out the difference between the two basic areas of formal logic, the logic of propositions and the logic of terms, undifferentiated before the development of modern mathematical logic. The understanding of this distinction leads Lukasiewicz to trace the history of propositional logic back to its original development by the Stoics, its further development by the medieval Scholastics, and its axiomatization by Gottlob Frege. The status of mathematical logic is discussed in various works. The most basic system is propositional logic, upon which depend the other logical disciplines and also mathematics. Mathematical logic, also called logistic, is independent of philosophy and espouses no philosophical viewpoint. Early in his career, Lukasiewicz refers to mathematical logic as the logic of algebra and uses mathematical symbolism to represent logical propositions. Later he introduces what we now call "Polish notation," in particular, "Cpq" for "if p, then q" and "Np" for "it is not the case that p" for the primitive functions, eliminating the need for punctuation. He adopts the symbols Π and Σ for quantification from Charles S. Peirce, and also brings to light the almost unknown fact that it was Peirce who invented the matrix method in 1885. The paper, "Investigations into the Sentential Calculus", written by Lukasiewicz and Tarski embodies the results of a decade of research on the sentential calculus initiated by Lukasiewicz at the University of Warsaw systematically compiling the contributions of five logicians: Lindenbaum, Sobocinski, Wajsberg, Tarski, and Lukasiewicz. The approach is metalogical and depends heavily upon set theoretic concepts; it covers both the matrix and axiomatic methods. One of the problems that preoccupied Lukasiewicz was that of determinism, which led to his development of three-valued logic. A proposition such as "I shall be in Warsaw at noon on 21 December of next year" is neither true nor false; a third truth value is needed, one which Lukasiewicz calls "the possible." Another area to which Lukasiewicz contributed is modal logic, proving that modal logic cannot be two-valued. Lukasiewicz’ analysis and axiomatization of Aristotle’s syllogistic is not included in the present volume since an English edition by Lukasiewicz on this topic is available. We have here briefly touched upon a few of Lukasiewicz’ numerous achievements in logic; the best means of appreciating them is to read his works.—T. G. N. (shrink)

Beginning with the traditional rules for syllogistic validity, Bird leads the reader without further ado through Aristotle's method of reduction, Keynes' treatment of the antilogism, Lukasiewicz's axiomatization, Ivo Thomas's extension of the last to negative terms, and on to the treatment of empty terms via informal Boolean algebra and the introduction of singular terms. Lukasiewicz's axiom system is investigated in some detail, and independence and consistency are proved. The problem of existential import is discussed quite thoroughly, though it is (...) doubtful that the last word is spoken here. Modalities come in for discussion, but their relation to syllogistic is hardly indicated. Not covered are quantificational analyses of syllogistic. The presentation is marred though not vitiated by various imprecisions in the metatheory. Symbolism is used from the start, and Venn diagrams are resorted to throughout.—J. B. B. (shrink)

In previous articles, it has been shown that the deductive system developed by Aristotle in his "second logic" is a natural deduction system and not an axiomatic system as previously had been thought. It was also stated that Aristotle's logic is self-sufficient in two senses: First, that it presupposed no other logical concepts, not even those of propositional logic; second, that it is (strongly) complete in the sense that every valid argument expressible in the language of (...) the system is deducible by means of a formal deduction in the system. Review of the system makes the first point obvious. The purpose of the present article is to prove the second. Strong completeness is demonstrated for the Aristotelian system. (shrink)

A reprint of the first edition together with three new chapters and an enlarged index. The new chapters include some previously published material and discuss Aristotle's modal logic of propositions, Lukasiewicz' new system of modal logic, and Aristotle's modal syllogistic. The author relates his interpretation of Aristotle's modal logic to the philosophical issues raised by modern modal logics. -- J. J. C.

Extending Lukasiewicz's approach of axiomatization to the modal syllogistic, McCall develops a system of fourteen axioms with decision procedure, in which exactly those necessity syllogisms recognized by Aristotle are provable. Primitives, besides those of propositional logic, are Necessity and the A and I statement forms. The approach thus contrasts with that of the "structuralists", who would analyze Aristotle's modal statements further in terms of contemporary logic systems. The seemingly insurmountable problems of the contingency syllogisms are circumvented by taking contingency (...) as an additional primitive requiring fourteen further axioms. In the resulting system, all of Aristotle's contingency syllogisms, as well as twenty-four which he overlooked, are provable. Although a "structuralist" analysis would seem indispensable for an ultimate understanding of the modal syllogistic, McCall's formalization is more faithful to Aristotle than any hitherto proposed.--J. B. B. (shrink)

Resumo: No início do capítulo XIII do Leviatã, Hobbes apresentou o princípio da igualdade original de poder entre homens como um princípio básico de seu sistema político, do qual todas as teses subseqüentes deveriam ser estritamente deduzidas como teoremas. Surpreendentemente, porém, quando Hobbes mais tarde chega à dedução da 9ª Lei de Natureza, ele parece estar tentando demonstrar o próprio princípio da igualdade a partir do qual todas as leis da natureza, inclusive a 9ª, devem ter sido supostamente derivadas. (...) Meu objetivo neste artigo é oferecer uma explicação para esta aparente circularidade, e meu ponto de partida é que devemos distinguir o papel do princípio da igualdade no capítulo XIII, que trata do estado de natureza, do contexto em que opera a 9ª Lei, que é o da sociedade civil. Mas embora esta distinção de contextos nos permita chegar, em cada caso, a diferentes medidas de desigualdade, vou argumentar que essa diferença situa-se inteiramente na métrica, e que a topologia básica da desigualdade na distribuição do poder original permanece a mesma em ambos os casos. Como resultado, vou propor que, ao contrário da opinião costumeira, a posição de Hobbes não difere essencialmente da de Aristóteles, quanto a serem os homens naturalmente desiguais quanto a suas capacidades mentais, embora as conseqüências políticas que cada filósofo extrai desta tese sejam radicalmente diferentes. Nesse sentido, para Hobbes, a 9ª Lei é o meio pelo qual esta desigualdade pode ser minimizada retoricamente para fins de estabilidade política.Palavras-chave: Hobbes - Desigualdade - Estado de natureza.: In the beginning of Chapter XIII of his Leviathan, Hobbes presented the principle of the original equality in power among men as a basic tenet of his political system, from which all the subsequent thesis were to be strictly deduced as theorems. Surprisingly, however, when Hobbes later arrives at deduction of the 9th Law of Nature, he seems to be trying to demonstrate the very principle of equality from which all laws of nature, including the 9th, should be purportedly derived. My aim in this paper is to offer an explanation of this apparent circularity, and my point is that we must distinguish the role of the principle of equality in the Chapter XIII, which deals with the state of nature, from the context in which the 9th Law operates, which is that of the civil society. However, although this distinction of contexts allows us to arrive at very different measures of inequality in each case, I will argue that this difference lays entirely in the metrics, and the basic topology of the inequality in the original distribution of power remains the same in both cases. As a result I will propose that, contrarily to the usual opinion, Hobbes's position doesn't differ essentially from Aristotle's as to men being naturally unequal as regards their mental abilities, though the political consequences that each philosopher extracts from this thesis are radically different. In this sense, for Hobbes, the 9th Law is the means by which this inequality can be rhetorically minimized for the purposes of political stability. (shrink)

In his 1910 book On the principle of contradiction in Aristotle, Jan Łukasiewicz claims that syllogistic is independent of the principle of contradiction . He also argues that Aristotle would have defended such a thesis in the Posterior Analytics. In this paper, we first show that Łukasiewicz's arguments for these two claims have to be rejected. Then, we show that the thesis of the independence of assertoric syllogistic vis-à-vis PC is nevertheless true. For that purpose, we first establish that there (...) is no possibility to account for Aristotle's original views on syllogistic without using per impossibile deductions. At last, following an idea due to Smith 1983, we prove that there is a complete reconstruction of assertoric syllogistic using ecthesis instead of reductio ad absurdum. Contrary to what is claimed in Smith 1983, we show that Smith's system SE has to be improved for such a reconstruction. This results in an ecthetic system which is complete with respect to syllogistic arguments, not explosi.. (shrink)

Avec l’article « Aristotle’s natural deduction system », publié en 1974, J. Corcoran a contribué à diffuser une nouvelle perspective sur les écrits logiques d’Aristote et sur la théorie du syllogisme en particulier. Dans cet article, Corcoran affirme que, dans les premiers chapitres des Premiers Analytiques, Aristote ne propose pas un système axiomatique, qui supposerait une logique sous-jacente, ainsi que le pensait Łukasiewicz, mais plutôt un système de déduction naturelle, avec des dimensions métalogiques. Notre propos est ici basé sur (...) une courte monographie de Kurt Ebbinghaus, intitulée Ein formales Model der Syllogistik des Aristoteles (1964), où est fixé le canon de cette nouvelle perspective mentionnée plus haut et qui a été développé dans le cadre conceptuel de la « logique opérative » de Paul Lorenzen. Ebbinghaus développe une reconstruction formelle montrant que l’approche d’Aristote relève de la « théorie de la preuve », non seulement pour ce qui concerne le système d’inférence sous-jacent, mais aussi pour ce qui concerne les éléments métalogiques. C’est notamment à travers ce dernier aspect que se manifeste une différence majeure par rapport à la reconstruction de Corcoran. Alors que celui-ci pose que le système d’inférence d’Aristote est enraciné dans une sémantique de théorie des modèles (élaborée par Corcoran lui-même), Ebbinghaus comprend que la théorie du syllogisme a été développée à partir d’une approche de la signification par des règles (« rule based »), semblables aux règles d’un jeu. En fait, la reconstruction d’Ebbinghaus offre une lecture pragmatiste de la syllogistique d’Aristote, qui, tel est notre propos, paraît non seulement beaucoup plus proche du point de vue d’Aristote que ne l’est la sémantique de théorie des modèles proposée par Corcoran, mais qui, de plus, permet de saisir l’unité systématique de la théorie du syllogisme. (shrink)

This review places this translation and commentary on Book A of Prior Analytics in historical, logical, and philosophical perspective. In particular, it details the author’s positions on current controversies. The author of this translation and commentary is a prolific and respected scholar, a leading figure in a large and still rapidly growing area of scholarship: Prior Analytics studies PAS. PAS treats many aspects of Aristotle’s Prior Analytics: historical context, previous writings that influenced it, preservation and transmission of its manuscripts, editions (...) of its manuscripts, interpretations, commentaries, translations, and its influence on subsequent logic, philosophy, and mathematics. All this attention is warranted because Prior Analytics marks the origin of logic: the field that, among other things, asks of a given proposition whether it follows from a given set of propositions; and, if it follows, how we determine that it follows; and, if it does not follow, how we determine that it does not follow. This translation and commentary is not suitable for use in an undergraduate course. It has too many quirks that the teacher would want to warn against. A copy editor should have dealt with these things and with other matters such as incorrect punctuation and improper end-of-line divisions. The prose is heavily laden with glaring clichés. The one-page preface contains “longer than I care to remember”, “more than I can possibly list here”, “first and foremost”, and “last and by no means least”—a sentence later is devoted to thanking the “incredibly meticulous and helpful copy-editor”. A few pages later the translator reveals the need “to find a path between the Scylla … and the Charybdis …”. Moreover, the index is far from meeting the needs of undergraduate students. The attention to scholarly detail is not what one hoped for from Oxford University Press. At 26b10-15, this translation reads “let swan and white be chosen as white things” for what Smith correctly translates “let swan and snow be selected from among those white things”. At 41b16, “angles AB and CD” should read “angles AC and BD”. Despite this book’s flaws, it will be found useful if not indispensable for those currently engaged in Prior Analytics studies. The alternatives suggested to Robin Smith’s translation choices are often worth consideration. It is to be emphasized, however, that this book is unsuitable for those entering Prior Analytics studies. (shrink)

This is the best study available of Aristotle’s syllogistic. It combines the insights that have been gained into logical form through the development of modern logic with the traditional philological and philosophical understanding of the Aristotelian text. Such a work has been badly needed since Lukasiewicz first offered his revolutionary interpretation of Aristotle’s syllogistic as a formal system meeting the most rigorous demands of modern logic. Lukasiewicz did little to show how his interpretation could be based on the text (...) of Aristotle, and the question remained whether the result was not rather more Lukasiewicz than Aristotle. Dr Patzig has now offered the detailed textual analysis needed to prove the point and, in doing so, has in many cases corrected and improved upon Lukasiewicz. (shrink)

Jan Lukasiewicz's treatise on Aristotle's Syllogistic, published in the 1950s, has been very influential in framing contemporary understanding of Aristotle's logical systems. However, Lukasiewicz's interpretation is based on a number of tendentious claims, not least, the claim that the syllogistic was intended to apply only to non-empty terms. I show that this interpretation is not true to Aristotle's text and that a more coherent and faithful interpretation admits empty terms while maintaining all the relations of the traditional square of opposition.

We propose a new modal logic endowed with a simple deductive system to interpret Aristotle's theory of the modal syllogism. While being inspired by standard propositional modal logic, it is also a logic of terms that admits a (sound) extensional semantics involving possible states-of-affairs in a given world. Applied to the analysis of Aristotle's modal syllogistic as found in the Prior Analytics A8-22, it sheds light on various fine-grained distinctions which when made allow us to clarify some ambiguities and (...) obtain a completely consistent system and prove all of the modal syllogisms considered valid by Aristotle. This logic allows us also to make a connection with the axioms of modern propositional modal logic and to perceive to what extent these are implicit in Aristotle's reasoning. Further work will involve addressing the question of the completeness of this logic (or variants thereof) together with an extension of the logic to include a calculus of relations (for instance the relational syllogistic treated in Galen's Introduction to Logic) which Slomkowsky has argued is already found in the Topics. (shrink)

In La Silogística de Aristóteles, Antonio Benítez (i) offers a critical analysis of two contemporary interpretations of Aristotle's syllogistic of assertoric propositions (Corcoran and Łukasiewicz)...

The aim of this paper is to propose a particular conception and formulation of the concepts of formal derivation and axiomatic system, which, although not orthodox, remain part of classical first order logic. It is proposed, in particular, that the definition of formal derivation includes the pos..

Adopting a different method from the previous scholars, this article deduces the remaining 23 valid syllogisms just taking the syllogism AEE-4 as the basic axiom. The basic idea of this study is as follows: firstly, make full use of the trichotomy structure of categorical propositions to formalize categorical syllogisms. Then, taking advantage of the deductive rules in classical propositional logic and the basic facts in the generalized quantifier theory, we deduce the remaining 23 valid categorical syllogisms by taking just one (...) syllogism (that is, AEE-4) as the basic axiom. This article not only reveals the reducible relations between the syllogism AEE-4 and the other 23 valid syllogisms, but also establishes a concise formal axiomatic system for categorical syllogistic logic. We hope that the results and methods will provide a good mathematical paradigm for studying other kinds of syllogistic logics, and that the project will appeal to specialists in logic, linguistic semantics, computational semantics, cognitive science and artificial intelligence. (shrink)

Gottfried Leibniz embarked on a research program to prove all the Aristotelic categorical syllogisms by diagrammatic and algebraic methods. He succeeded in proving them by means of Euler diagrams, but didn’t produce a manuscript with their algebraic proofs. We demonstrate how key excerpts scattered across various Leibniz’s drafts on logic contained sufficient ingredients to prove them by an algebraic method –which we call the Leibniz-Cayley (LC) system– without having to make use of the more expressive and complex machinery of (...) first-order quantificational logic. In addition, we prove the classic categorical syllogisms again by a relational method –which we call the McColl-Ladd (ML) system– employing categorical relations studied by Hugh McColl and Christine Ladd. Finally, we show the connection of ML and LC with Boolean algebra, proving that ML is a consequence of LC, and that LC is a consequence of the Boolean lattice axioms, thus establishing Leibniz’s historical priority over George Boole in characterizing and applying (a sufficient fragment of) Boolean algebra to effectively tackle categorical syllogistic. (shrink)

As noted in 1962 by Timothy Smiley, if Aristotle’s logic is faithfully translated into modern symbolic logic, the fit is exact. If categorical sentences are translated into many-sorted logic MSL according to Smiley’s method or the two other methods presented here, an argument with arbitrarily many premises is valid according to Aristotle’s system if and only if its translation is valid according to modern standard many-sorted logic. As William Parry observed in 1973, this result can be proved using my (...) 1972 proof of the completeness of Aristotle’s syllogistic. (shrink)

An account of Aristotle's syllogistic (including a full square of opposition and allowing for empty nouns) as an integral part of first-order predicate logic is lacking. Some say it is not possible. It is not found in the tradition stemming from ukasiewicz's attempt nor in less formal approaches such as Strawson's. The ukasiewicz tradition leaves Aristotle's syllogistic as an autonomous axiomatized system. In this paper Aristotle's syllogistic is presented within first-order predicate logic with special restricted quantifiers. The theory is (...) not motivated primarily by historical considerations but as an accurate account of categorical sentences along lines suggested by recent work on natural language quantifiers and themes from supposition theory. It provides logical forms which conform to grammatical ones and is intended as a rival to accounts of quantifiers in natural language that appeal to binary quantifiers, for example, Wiggins or to restricted quantifiers, for example, Neale. (shrink)

We can now recognize Aristotle's many accomplishments in logical theory, not the least of which is treating the deduction process itself as a subject matter and thus establishing the science of logic. Aristotle took logic to be that part of epistemolo gy used to establish knowledge of logical consequence. Prior Analytics is a metalogical treatise on his syllogistic system in which Aristotle modelled his deduction system to demonstrate certain logical relationships among its rules. Aristotle's n otion of substitution (...) distinguishes logical syntax from semantics and enabled him to distinguish validity from deducibility sufficiently to note the completeness of his logic. (shrink)

In this paper we first show that Robin Smith’s ecthetic system SE for Aristotle’s assertoric syllogistic is not complete, despite what is claimed by Smith. SE is then not adequate to establish that ecthesis allows one to dispense with indirect or per impossibile deductions in Aristotle’s assertoric logic. As an alternative to SE, we then present a stronger system EC which is adequate for this purpose. EC is a nonexplosive ecthetic system which is shown to be sound (...) and complete with respect to all valid syllogistic arguments with a consistent set of premises. (shrink)

This presentation includes a complete bibliography of John Corcoran’s publications devoted at least in part to Aristotle’s logic. Sections I–IV list 20 articles, 43 abstracts, 3 books, and 10 reviews. It starts with two watershed articles published in 1972: the Philosophy & Phenomenological Research article that antedates Corcoran’s Aristotle’s studies and the Journal of Symbolic Logic article first reporting his original results; it ends with works published in 2015. A few of the items are annotated with endnotes connecting them with (...) other work. In addition, Section V “Discussions” is a nearly complete secondary bibliography of works describing, interpreting, extending, improving, supporting, and criticizing Corcoran’s work: 8 items published in the 1970s, 22 in the 1980s, 39 in the 1990s, 56 in the 2000s, and 65 in the current decade. The secondary bibliography is annotated with endnotes: some simply quoting from the cited item, but several answering criticisms and identifying errors. As is evident from the Acknowledgements sections, all of Corcoran’s publications benefited from correspondence with other scholars, most notably Timothy Smiley, Michael Scanlan, and Kevin Tracy. All of Corcoran’s Greek translations were done in consultation with two or more classicists. Corcoran never published a sentence without discussing it with his colleagues and students. REQUEST: Please send errors, omissions, and suggestions. I am especially interested in citations made in non-English publications. (shrink)

Aristotle in Analytica Posteriora presented a notion of proof as a special case of syllogism. In the present paper the remarks of Aristotle on the subject are used as an inspiration for developing formal systems of demonstrative syllogistic, which are supposed to formalize syllogisms that are proofs. We build our systems in the style of J. Łukasiewicz as theories based on classical propositional logic. The difference between our systems and systems of syllogistic known from the literature lays in the interpretation (...) of general positive sentences in which the same name occurs twice (of the form SaS). As a basic assumption of demonstrative syllogistic we accept a negation of such a sentence. We present three systems which differ in the interpretation of specific positive sentences in which the same name occurs twice (of the form SiS). The theories are defined as axiomatic systems. For all of them rejected axiomatizations are also supplied. For two of them a set theoretical model is also defined. (shrink)

As a discipline, logic is arguably constituted of two main sub-projects: formal theories of argument validity on the basis of a small number of patterns, and theories of how to reduce the multiplicity of arguments in non-logical, informal contexts to the small number of patterns whose validity is systematically studied . Regrettably, we now tend to view logic 'proper' exclusively as what falls under the first sub-project, to the neglect of the second, equally important sub-project. In this paper, I discuss (...) two historical theories of argument formalization: Aristotle's syllogistic theory as presented in the "Prior Analytics", and medieval theories of supposition. They both illustrate this two-fold nature of logic, containing in particular illuminating reflections on how to formalize arguments . In both cases, the formal methods employed differ from the usual modern technique of translating an argument in ordinary language into a specially designed symbolism, a formal language. The upshot is thus a plea for a broader conceptualization of what it means to formalize. Pode-se dizer que, enquanto disciplina, a lógica é caracterizada por dois subprojetos: teorias formais da validade de argumentos, baseadas em um número reduzido de esquemas e padrões formais, e teorias de como reduzir a multiplicidade de argumentos em contextos informais, não lógicos, ao pequeno número de padrões formais cuja validade é estudada de maneira sistemática no âmbito do primeiro subprojeto. O segundo subprojeto corresponde à noção de formalização de argumentos. Infelizmente, a tendência atual é de considerar como sendo a lógica propriamente dita exclusivamente o que se encaixa no primeiro subprojeto, em detrimento do segundo subprojeto, igualmente importante. Neste artigo, duas teorias históricas sobre a formalização de argumentos são analisadas: a teoria da silogística apresentada por Aristóteles nos "Primeiros Analíticos" e teorias medievais da suposição. Ambas ilustram o caráter duplo da lógica, que envolve dois subprojetos distintos, e contêm reflexões sofisticadas sobre como formalizar argumentos. Em ambos os casos, os métodos formais utilizados se diferenciam dos métodos atuais de tradução de um argumento em linguagem vernacular para um simbolismo especialmente formulado, ou seja, uma linguagem formal. Em conclusão, o artigo pode ser visto como a defesa de uma conceitualização mais abrangente do que significa 'formalizar' um argumento. (shrink)

Aristotle’s categorical syllogistic is the first formal deductive system in the history of formal sciences. Most parts or elements of the system are validated by modern (first-order) mathematical logic, but the system is quite limited in scope, as it is incapable of analyzing inferences other than the ‘figure syllogisms’ consisting of a couple of_ a-e-i-o_ premises and an _a-e-i-o_ conclusion, containing three ‘moderately’ universal terms – terms that express neither a highest genus nor a lowest species – (...) each of which is common to a different couple of propositions out of the three. Logicians in the following ages dealt with various questions concerning the addition of various (novel) logical forms into this limited system, among which are singular predications, i.e. categorical propositions with a singular term as subject, and the most common choice has been interpreting singular predications as _universal _predications. This paper tries to take a strictly formal perspective on the system of categorical syllogisms, and argues in detail for a much simpler and fairly effective assimilation or translation scheme for singular predications. The key to the proposed scheme is the preservation of the supposed inferential relation between opposite singular predications, namely _contradiction_. It is argued that the resulting _singularized _syllogistic moods, which are also validated by first-order logic (under its standard renderings of _a-e-i-o_ and singular predications), promote in turn the mentioned type of treatment, since they call for the employment of two of the four subaltern moods of the system, disregarded by Aristotle, which are _formally _there. (shrink)

This article investigates the nature of Aristotelian syllogistics and shows that the categorical syllogism is fundamentally about showing the connection, in the premises of the syllogism, between the major and minor terms as stated in the conclusion. It discusses how this is important for the use of the syllogism in scientific demonstration. The article then examines modern deductive logic with an eye to they way in which it contrasts with Aristotelian syllogistics. It shows howmodern logic is about making necessary connections (...) between each proposition by means of external or second order rules. In the syllogism, on the other hand, the necessity between the premises as a whole unit and the conclusion is based on the internal middle term. The article concludes with a discussion of Günther Patzig’s claim that Aristotelian syllogisms are best thought of as tautological propositions. If this were the case, then the differences asserted to exist between syllogistic and modern logic would not hold. However, it is shown that Patzig’s assimilation of syllogistics to modern deductive logic is illegitimate. (shrink)

In recent times there has been a shift in the interpretation of Aristotle’s logic. Many researchers have pointed out that the concept of existential import appears in Aristotle’s logic and philosophy, and that Aristotle worked with the concept of empty terms although his concept differs from that which is used in modern logic. Additionally, his search for the “culprits” of old and incorrect interpretation has been tied to the development of modern interpretation. Apart from the traditional concept of the logical (...) square and syllogistics, where the assumption of non-emptiness of terms was widely used, J. L. Łukasiewicz is also labeled as an offender. This article tries to show that Łukasiewicz was aware that Aristotle was also dealing with empty terms. His restriction of syllogistics to only non-empty terms therefore differs significantly from the approach of traditional logicians. (shrink)

Chapter 1 presents BS, a basic syllogistic system based on Aristotle's logic, in natural deduction form. Chapters 2 and 3 treat the metatheory of BS: consitency, soundness, independence, and completeness. Chapter 4 and 5 deal with syllogistic and, in turn, propositional and predicate logic, chapter 6 is on existential import, chapter 7 on subject and predicate and chapter 8 on classes. Chapter 9 adds negative variables to BS, and proves its soundness and completeness.

Not until the early 1920’s was it possible to distinguish Aristotelian or traditional logic from Aristotle’s own ancient logic. We can now recognize many aspects of his logical investigations that are themselves modern, in the sense that modern logicians are making discoveries that Aristotle had already made or had anticipated. Here we gather five salient features of Aristotle’s logical investigations that reveal a striking philosophical modernity: 1) Aristotle took logic to be that part of epistemology used to establish knowledge of (...) logical consequence; 2) Prior Analytics is a metalogical treatise on the syllogistic deduction system; 3) Aristotle recognized the epistemic efficacy of certain elemental argument patterns, and he explicitly formulated them as rules of natural deduction in corresponding sentences; 4) Prior Analytics is a proof-theoretic treatise in which Aristotle describes a natural deduction system and demonstrates certain of the logical relationships among syllogistic deduction rules ; and finally, 5) Aristotle worked with a notion of substitution sufficient for distinguishing logical syntax and semantics. In this connection he also distinguished validity from deducibility sufficiently well to note the completeness of his logic. (shrink)

Aristotle's syllogistic theory, as developed in his Prior Analytics, is often regarded as the birth of logic in Western philosophy. Over the past century, scholars have tried to identify important precursors to this theory. I argue that Platonic division, a method which aims to give accounts of essences of natural kinds by progressively narrowing down from a genus, influenced Aristotle's logical theory in a number of crucial respects. To see exactly how, I analyze the method of division as it was (...) originally conceived by Plato and received by Aristotle. I argue that, while Plato allowed that some divisions fail to rigorously investigate the essence, he began a program continued by Aristotle (and others in antiquity and the middle ages) of seeking norms for division that would apply in any domain whatsoever. This idea of a rigorous, general method was taken up and developed by Aristotle in his syllogistic. Aristotle also used Plato's conception of predication as parthood in his semantics for syllogistic propositions. As part of my argument, I prove that a semantics based on Platonic divisional structures is sound and complete for the deduction system used in the literature to model Aristotle's syllogistic. (shrink)

Why does Aristotle not use the copulative wording for categorical propositions, but instead the clumsier terminological formulations (e. g. the B belongs to every A) in his syllogistic? The proposed explanations by Alexander, Lukasiewicz and Patzig: Aristotle wants to make clear the difference between subject and predicate, seems to be insufficient. In quantified categorical propositions, this difference is always sufficiently clear by the use of the pronouns going with the subject expressions. Aristotle opts for the terminological wording because in premiss (...) pairs of figures two and three he can thus suppress the middle term in one of the premisses and connect the major and minor term, using connecting particles. This renders the syllogisms more transparent. Had he used the copulative wording instead, he would have run into difficulties, in particular with o-propositions among the premisses (i. e. in Baroco and Bocardo) because in these cases the pronoun expressing the quantification would have to go with the subject term, the negation with the predicate. (shrink)

Las investigaciones que Carlos Alchourrón desarrolló en la Filosofía del Derecho se vincularon, desde inicios de la década de 1980, con problemáticas críticas de la Inteligencia Artificial. Su contribución a la construcción de una lógica de las normas se conectó rápidamente con la deducción automática y los Sistemas Expertos Jurídicos. Su preocupación por la cuestión de los conflictos de obligaciones que pueden plantearse en un sistema normativo cuando el juez se enfrenta a la necesidad de emitir un veredicto considerando (...) ciertos hechos, se vinculó, en sus trabajos, con la noción más general de "condicionales derrotables" y con la formalización del Razonamiento No Monótono. Pero su contribución de mayor impacto fue aquella derivada de la búsqueda de una solución al problema de los resultados múltiples que surgen de la derogación de una norma en un sistema jurídico, problema que puede ser visto, en un contexto epistémico, como el de la contracción de un conjunto de creencias. Su enfoque constructivo, que desarrolló con David Makinson, convergió con el axiomático elaborado por Peter Gärdenfors, dando lugar al surgimiento de la teoría de los Cambios Racionales de Creencias, más conocida como AGM, teoría que fue adoptada en IA como un modelo standard para la especificación de las actualizaciones de Bases de Conocimiento, operaciones que, habitualmente, involucran la introducción de una nueva creencia que puede ser inconsistente con las anteriores. ¿Por qué AGM adquirió rápidamente carta de ciudadanía en IA, al punto de que su influencia, medida según la cantidad de menciones bibliográficas del artículo fundacional de 1985, se ha duplicado en la última década? Mostraremos en este trabajo que la teoría apareció en un momento de crisis de la IA y que el alto nivel de abstracción del modelo de AGM era lo que muchos investigadores de la disciplina estaban buscando. El presente artículo, luego de describir la génesis de AGM, realiza un análisis histórico de las circunstancias en las cuales la teoría se introdujo en la IA y una evaluación cuantitativa y cualitativa de su impacto en dicha disciplina. The main lines of research that Carlos Alchourrón developed in the Philosophy of Law, were connected, from the beginnings of the 80' s, to some critical problems in the Artificial Intelligence. His contributions to the construction of a logic of norms were rapidly linked to automatic deduction and the Legal Expert Systems. His concerns for the conflict of obligations that could arise in a normative system when a judge has to issue a ruling taking some particular facts into account were associated in his work with the more general notion of "defeasible conditionals" and with the formalization of Non Monotonic Reasoning. But his most relevant contribution was the one derived from the search of a solution to the problem of multiple outcomes resulting from the derogation of a norm in a legal corpus, which may be considered -within an epistemic framework- analogous to the contraction of a set of beliefs. The constructive approach he worked out with David Makinson converged with Peter Gärdenfors' axiomatic, giving rise to the formulation of the theory of Rational Changes of Belief, which was adopted in AI as a model for the specification of the updates of Knowledge Bases as it usually involves a new belief that may be inconsistent with the old ones. (shrink)