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
    The Aristotelian syllogism is insufficient as the sole mo... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Aristotelian syllogism is insufficient as the sole model of argumentation

    Philosophy of Language
    ?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.There exist valid forms of argumentation — such as the dilemma, paradox, and sorites — that cannot be easily forced into the syllogistic form
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The rhetorician must use forms beyond the syllogism to persuade
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle himself distinguished demonstrative, dialectical, and rhetorical syllogisms in the Prior Analytics, Topics, and Rhetoric respectively.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A framework that explicitly encompasses probabilistic enthymemes and topical reasoning cannot be charged with restricting argumentation to formal demonstration alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Valla's critique therefore attacks a scholastic caricature of Aristotle rather than the full Aristotelian logical corpus.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The dilemma and sorites are reducible to chains of conditional syllogisms via hypothetical syllogistic, as Theophrastus and later Leibniz demonstrated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If all contested argument forms are formalizable within extended syllogistic, the claim that syllogism is insufficient loses its primary evidential basis.
      ?

      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

    A framework that explicitly encompasses probabilistic enthymemes and topical rea...Aristotle himself distinguished demonstrative, dialectical, and rhetorical syllo...If all contested argument forms are formalizable within extended syllogistic, th...The dilemma and sorites are reducible to chains of conditional syllogisms via hy...
    +3 moreShow less
    The rhetorician must use forms beyond the syllogism to persuadeThere exist valid forms of argumentation — such as the dilemma, paradox, and sor...Valla's critique therefore attacks a scholastic caricature of Aristotle rather t...

    Similar

    Aristotle's syllogistic is incomplete as a general theory of valid arg...85%An argument fails to be a syllogism if its premises do not necessitate...85%A syllogism is defined as an argument that is an indemonstrable or red...85%Dialectic considers and uses only the syllogism in isolation from its ...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: lorenzo-valla
    View source passageHide passage
    After Valla’s attack on what he calls the fundamenta (foundations) of Aristotelian-scholastic metaphysics and natural philosophy, he turns to dialectic in Books II and III of his Repastinatio. For Valla, argumentation should be approached from an oratorical rather than a logical point of view. What counts is whether an argument works, which means whether it convinces one’s adversary or public. The form of the argument is less important. Dialectic is a species of confirmation and refutation; and,
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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