The purpose of this article is to elucidate the evolution of Wittgenstein’s philosophy. After having considered in the Tractatus, natural language as suffering from many deficiencies and does not respond to his aspirations which are the establishment of a logically perfect language by the precision and adjusting so that each object should correspond only one word, this position has evolved in Investigations for a reconsideration of natural language as having a particular importance for its infinite uses, that take the form of a "language- game" using specific rules. This new dynamic analysis of language, as opposed to the static analysis of the Tractatus, permitted natural discourse to regain its semantic dimension to remain creative and ingenious. What distinguishes the two theories? And what are the resulting philosophical consequences? This is what we will try to clarify.

No abstract

There is no theory which has received a big interest historically as Aristotelian syllogistic, despite the criticisms to which the theory was exposed by philosophers and logicians like Francis Bacon and Jean Stuart mill in their philosophical and logical works, they considered it as an epistemological obstacle to the development of scientific knowledge, and there is a need to get over it to new method and process, but It is still an interesting subject of study and updated by many logicians to nowadays. The most prominent attempts: the Intentional approach opposite to the comprehensive one, then the approach of the logician and philosopher Ian Łukasiewicz, who tried to read the syllogistic theory with the use of accurate and rigorous analysis tool in classical logic, which is the calculi of propositions where he considered the real form of Aristotelian syllogism moods is conditional (If ... so), i.e., as computable logical laws not inferential rules (If ... then). In order to reach this purpose Łukasiewicz present his hypotheses, some of them are verified for the others he have had to make several interpretations to make his theory consistent. These interpretations took him away from the spirit of the theory and from the essence of what did Aristotle. This made his approach the subject of numerous and harsh criticisms. This is what we will try to show it through a critical analysis to some hypotheses which he presented in his book “Aristotle’s Syllogistic from the standpoint of Modern Formal Logic”.

No abstract

No abstract