Page 293 - Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language

speculate as to why the origins of logic were in Greece. Perhaps the closest to an explanation conies with the recognition that the Greeks began the systematic study of philosophy—a discipline within which argu- ment plays perhaps a larger part than it does else- where, at least as practiced by the Greeks. It has been observed that the Greeks of the fifth and fourth centuries BCwere 'intoxicated' with argument, so it should not be all that surprising that they were also the first to investigate systematically the inferences on which their argumentation was based.
The formalization of logic and the attempt to codify the principles of valid inference were Aristotle's great contributions to the subject. However, it is worth remarking on his predecessors, since their less formal work is what stimulated Aristotle, and provided him with the necessary materials. There are three different strands to the logical tradition before Aristotle. The first was the mathematical: Greek geometers, most particularly Pythagoras and those of his school (sixth century BC) sought proofs of the truths which, in many cases, had merely been 'observed' to be true by the Egyptians. Since a proof is a special kind of argu- ment—one used to demonstrate the truth of its con- clusion from a set of truths (axioms) fully accepted as true—this area provided Aristotle with a great many of his examples. Moreover, it is clear that Aristotle thought of demonstrative reasoning as the most rep- resentative form of inference, and this came to be reflected in his choice of formal methods.
The second pre-Aristotelian strand centers on phil- osophy and, in particular, metaphysics and epis- temology. Philosophy in the Greek world was bound up with debate and argument. The Greeks found such argument fascinating, even more so when there was something paradoxical or puzzling in the result. Zeno of Elea, Euclides, and his pupil Eubulides, and, above all, Plato made argument the primary tool in the ende- avor to understand the structure of the world and our place in it. The dialogues of Plato are a vast repository of such metaphysical argument (generally known as 'dialectic'), and Aristotle, student as he was of Plato, was deeply influenced by them in at least two impor- tant ways. First, he shared with Plato the conviction that dialectical argument was a necessary feature of acquiring philosophical wisdom; and, second, he had to hand, in the Platonic teaching, a great many specific examples of such argument together with a conception of the nature and purpose of inference. For, though Plato did not himself introduce the formal methods into logic, he certainly did contribute a great deal to the philosophies of logic and language mentioned above. Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine how Aristotle could have taken the further steps he did ex- cept against this background. That he differed greatly from his teacher is certain, but Aristotle did take from Plato a set of questions about inference and validity which made his own contribution possible.
Moreover, even in his rejection of things Platonic, Aristotle shows a certain indebtedness. One may speculate that Aristotle's conviction that demonstra- tive reasoning, rather than dialectic, is the paradigm of codifiable inference is of a piece with his rejection of so many of the specific doctrines of his teacher.
The third strand of the pre-Aristotelian origins of logic is located in the social and cultural milieu rather than in the work of specific thinkers. In Athens and other Greek city states, the ability to win arguments in public debate was considered an important accomplishment for the ambitious citizen. This meant that instruction in the formal methods of debate was sought after, and there was a group of specialists in this type of instruction who were known as 'sophists.' Aristotle himself wrote a work giving hints as to how most effectively to present winning arguments, whether for their own sake or in, for example, courts of law. Clearly, this focus on the nature of debate and argument contributed hugely to the development of logic, though it also encouraged that rather negative view of logic which persists in the pejorative word 'sophistry.'
See: Plato and his Predecessors.
3. Aristotle's Contribution to Logic
Aristotle died in 322 BCand his work was collected by his pupils. The result of this was a corpus of work on logic and reasoning that some time after his death came to be called the 'Organon' or 'instrument of science.' Whether this classification is fully justified is not at all agreed. Certainly, there is work in the Orga- non which would be better classified as metaphysics or philosophy of language, but there can be no ques- tion of the importance of this classification for the history of logic. It came to be thought that the very boundaries of logic were to be identified with the various subject matters of the Organon.
The works in the Organon are as follows: (a) the Categories in which Aristotle examines among other things the kinds of predication (substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, situation, state, action and passion) which can be made in respect of a subject; (b) the Topics and its appendix, De Sophisticis Elenchis which together contain Aristotle's contribution to the art of dialectical debate as described earlier; (c) De Interpretatione in which are discussed the various ways in which pairs of statements can be opposed (as, for example, by being contradictory of one another); (d) the Prior Analytics in which Aristotle offers his system for the analysis of the logical form of arguments; and, finally, (e) the Posterior Analytics which is largely a philosophical treatise about demonstrative and other sorts of reasoning. The particular formal logic (the 'syllogistic') which has always been associated with Aristotle, and which so shaped the history of the sub-
ject for more than two thousand years, comes in 271
Logic:Historical Survey