Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Port Royal Logic — Carmelics
    Thinkers/Port Royal Logic
    PR

    Port Royal Logic

    modernCartesian Rationalism, Jansenist Scholasticism

    b. 1662

    The Port-Royal Logic (La Logique ou l'Art de penser, 1662) is a landmark treatise in early modern logic co-authored by Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole at the Jansenist Abbey of Port-Royal. It synthesized Cartesian epistemology with Aristotelian logic, introducing influential analyses of ideas, judgments, and reasoning. The work is notable for its early treatment of probability and for distinguishing between the mental, spoken, and written dimensions of language.

    WWikipediaSEPStanford Encyclopedia

    Notable Achievements

    1

    Introduced one of the earliest formal treatments of probability and expected value in the context of reasoning

    2

    Distinguished comprehension (intension) from extension in the analysis of ideas, foundational for modern intensional logic

    3

    Synthesized Descartes's epistemology with traditional syllogistic logic

    4

    Analyzed future contingents and their implications for modal and conditional reasoning

    5

    Influenced subsequent logic texts for over two centuries, shaping both Continental and British logical traditions

    Positions & Arguments(1)

    Modality & Possibility

    claim

    The second 'broad assumption' (¬p ∧ ¬Fp) → P¬Fp is not true when p refers to a future contingency

    Free Will & Foreknowledge

    claim

    The second 'broad assumption' (¬p ∧ ¬Fp) → P¬Fp is not true when p refers to a future contingency

    At a Glance

    Ideas

    1

    Topics

    2

    Era

    modern

    Tradition

    Cartesian Rationalism, Jansenist Scholasticism

    Topic Influence

    Free Will & Foreknowledge1
    Modality & Possibility1

    Related Thinkers

    David Lewis2 sharedImmanuel Kant2 sharedKenny2 sharedDavid Hume2 sharedPlato2 sharedAristotle2 sharedIsaac Newton2 sharedPeter van Inwagen2 shared

    Dive Deeper

    Explore Free Will & Foreknowledge→See Modality & Possibility→