La forme syllogistique et le problème des syllogismes sophistiques selon Robert Kilwardby

Universal Logic and Aristotelian Logic: Formality and Essence of Logic

“…3 Some embarrassment can be observed in the two English translations of the Prior Analytics generally referred to: Striker [33] has "syllogism", but she fells compelled to change for "deduction" in some cases; Smith [32] has "deduction" everywhere, even for the "narrow" notion of syllogismos (i.e. Anal pr I, [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] to which all other syllogimos are to be reduced. This choice is probably in line with the notion that the Prior Analytics are not talking of something else than were the Topics, the Sophistici Elenchi or the first version of the Posterior Analytics, so that it is fully justified in principle.…”

“…Because there is only one form of the syllogisms for all the genera, 9 The different syllogisms (scientific, topical and sophistic) are described by Alexander of Aphrodisias as species of the syllogisms, the differences coming from the "matter", i.e.the premises, whether they are themselves necessary, dialectical or eristic: see [3, p. 1, 3, p. 7, 5-11, p. 8, 19-29, p. 12, 5-13, 25, p. 27, 27-28, 2]. 10 These names for anonymous authors have been coined by scholars from the manuscript in which the text is contained: Orléans for AAII et AAIII; Cambridge for AC. These anonymous texts have been edited by Ebbesen in [17,18]; the edition of the AC is forthcoming.…”

“…1vb 19-35]. 26 See [10]. 27 As far as demonstrative syllogisms are concerned, this is the result of Boethius' notion that "axiomatic topics" are instrumental for the inference of the conclusion of syllogisms.…”

“…The idea is not to give here a detailed presentation of the thirteenth century debates on syllogistic form (see [9][10][11]), but to delineate some general features of this logic and its objects: syllogism (or argumentation) and, ultimately, proof and demonstration. The questions here addressed are the following:…”

Logical Hylomorphism in the Thirteenth Century

“…This is fully argued for the fallacy of accident (A1) and for the fallacy of equivocation. 7 This position was soon felt inacceptable, however, and it was not followed by Robert Kilwardby himself in the commentary on the Sophisiti Elenchi that has been ascribed to him, nor in a slightly latter work, the De Ortu Scientiarum (see [15]). In this context, the thirteen fallacies were described as non-syllogistic and formally defective, a position which became actually standard during the second half of the thirteenth century, as we shall see in more detail below.…”