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
    An argument is valid if it can be reduced to one of the f... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    An argument is valid if it can be reduced to one of the five indemonstrable argument forms through the use of certain ground rules (themata).

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The Stoics held that validity can be established by reduction to basic argument forms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The five indemonstrable forms are foundational argument forms not requiring further demonstration.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The themata themselves require justification, creating a regress problem that undermines the claim that reduction to indemonstrables establishes validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle's Prior Analytics demonstrates that syllogistic reduction to perfect syllogisms requires metalogical principles not captured within the system itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the ground rules (themata) are not themselves indemonstrable, validity becomes circular; if they are, the five forms are not uniquely foundational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's formalization of logic shows that propositional inference schemas require a semantics grounding validity in truth-preservation, not syntactic reduction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The Stoic account conflates proof-theoretic derivability with semantic validity, a distinction Tarski's work on logical consequence makes philosophically untenable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Aristotle's Prior Analytics demonstrates that syllogistic reduction to perfect s...Frege's formalization of logic shows that propositional inference schemas requir...If the ground rules (themata) are not themselves indemonstrable, validity become...The Stoic account conflates proof-theoretic derivability with semantic validity,...
    +3 moreShow less
    The Stoics held that validity can be established by reduction to basic argument ...The five indemonstrable forms are foundational argument forms not requiring furt...The themata themselves require justification, creating a regress problem that un...

    Similar

    The Stoics held that validity can be established by reduction to basic...82%An argument is a syllogism if and only if it either is an indemonstrab...81%The five indemonstrable forms are foundational argument forms not requ...80%An argument is proved valid if it can be shown to be an instance of a ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: stoicism
    View source passageHide passage
    The examples dealt with so far are examples of simple, complete sayables or propositions. The Stoics also developed an account of non-simple propositions. This interest in non-simple propositions and their logical relations was shared with philosophers in the Megarian or Dialectical school. It set the philosophers of the Hellenistic period on the pathway to surpass Aristotle’s progress in logic. His logic was ‘a logic of terms’. To put the matter very briefly and far too crudely, Aristotle had d
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit