Ways into the Logic of Alexander of Aphrodisias

199 Pages·1995·15.8 MB·English

by  Kevin L. Flannery

WAYS INTO THE LOGIC
OF
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS
PHILOSOPHIA ANTIQUA
A SERIES OF STUDIES
ON ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
FOUNDED BY J.H. WASZINK AND W.J. VERDENIUS
EDITED BY
J. MANSFELD, D.T. RUNIA
J.C.M. VAN WINDEN
VOLUME LXII
KEVIN L. FLANNERY, s.J.
WAYS INTO THE LOGIC OF
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS
WAYS INTO THE LOGIC
OF
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS
BY
KEVIN L. FLANNERY, s.J.
E.J. BRILL
LEIDEN · NEW YORK · KOLN
1995
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the
Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library
Resources.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
F1annery, Kevin L.
Ways into the logic of Alexander of Aphrodisias I by Kevin L.
F1annery.
p. em.-(Philosophia antiqua, ISSN 0079-1687 ; v. 62)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes.
ISBN 9004099980 (cloth : alk. paper)
I. Alexander, of Aphrodisias. 2. Logic, Ancient. I. Tide.
II. Series.
B535.A64F57 1995
160'.92-dc20 94-42819
CIP
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufna.lune
Flannery, Kevin L.:
Ways into the logic of Alexander of Aphrodisias I by Kevin L.
F1annery. ~ Leiden; New York; Koln: Brill, 1995
(Philosophia antiqua ; Vol. 62)
ISBN 9G-04--09998-Q
NE: GT
ISSN 0079-1687
ISBN 90 04 09998 0
© Copyright 1995 by E.]. Brill, Leiden, 1he Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part qf this publication mqy be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by arry means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission .from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use is granted by E.]. Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid direct[y to 1he Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
Dedicated to
FRANCIS R. and MARY C. FLANNERY
(my parents)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
General Introduction .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. XIX
Chapter One: Ecthesis
1.1 Introduction .................................................................. ..
1.2 Expository matters ................ ...................................... ... 4
1.2.1 A modem treatment ............................................ 4
1.2.2 The definitional proof of e-conversion .............. 6
1.2.2.1 The context ............................................. 6
1.2.2.2 The basis of the definitional proof ....... 8
1.2.2.3 The definitional proof itself ................... 10
1.2.3 Perceptual ecthesis ............................................... 16
1. 2. 3.1 Perceptual e-conversion .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16
1.2.3.2 The perceptual proof of Darapti .......... 19
1.2.4 Syllogistic ecthesis ................................................ 21
1.2.4.1 The proof of Darapti ............................. 21
1.2.4.2 The proof of e-conversion ..................... 23
1.2.4.3 The proofs of apodeictic Baroco
and Bocardo .............. .... .......................... 23
1.3 Interpretation ................ ................................ ................. 25
1.3.1 Definitional and perceptual proofs
compared ................. ............... ..................... .... ..... 25
1.3.2 Alexander the Theophrastan .............................. 27
1.3.3 The role of quantifiers ........................................ 30
1.3.4 Light shed on the Darapti proof ....................... 35
1.3.5 Two Lukasiewiczian objections ........................... 38
1.3.5.1 The role of singulars .............................. 38
1.3.5.2 The logical status of the perceptual ..... 40
1.3.6 Syllogistic proofs: an inconsistency? ................... 45
1.3.6.1 Resolution ................................................ 46
1.3.6.2 Some texts in Alexander ........................ 49
1.4 Conclusion ...................................................................... 52
Chapter Two: The contents of On mixed premisses
2.1 Introduction .................................................................... 53
2.2 What Philoponus says about On mixed premisses ........... 59
Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.3 Pseudo-Ammonius, in A.Pr.38--,-H ................................. 65
2.3.1 Philoponus and pseudo-Ammonius
compared . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 68
2.3.2 A difference re: the reductio solution ................ 70
2.4 The vexed question of hypothetical necessity ............. 74
2.4.1 Philoponus and pseudo-Ammonius .................... 74
2.4.2 Alexander, inA.Pr.140.14-28 .............................. 75
2.4.3 Alexander, in A.Pr.140.25-28 .............................. 78
2.4.4 Alexander, in A.Pr.l40.29-34 .............................. 81
2.4.5 Alexander, in A.Pr.141.1-6 .................................. 83
2.4.6 Alexander, in A.Pr.141.6-16 ................................ 85
2.4. 7 Alexander, in A.Pr.129-30 ................................... 86
2.5 The Arabic evidence ..................................................... 92
2.5.1 Averroes material and On mixed premisses ............ 92
2.5.2 Evidence in Averroes' Questions ........................... 94
2.5.3 The nature of the necessary ............................... 99
2.5.3.1 The 'Refutation' fragment ..................... 99
2.5.3.2 Alexander on grades of necessity .......... 101
2.5.3.3 Philoponus a plurimis naevis
vindicatus .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . 10 6
2.6 Conclusion ...................................................................... 108
Chapter Three: Logical Matter
3.1 Introduction .................................................................... 109
3.2 What is matter? (initial remarks) .................................. 110
3.2.1 The modern conception ...................................... 110
3.2.2 Alexander's understanding .................................. 111
3.2.3 Dummy letters (modern) ..................................... 114
3.2.4 Dummy letters (ancient) ...................................... 116
3.2.5 Matter as "stuff''? ................................................ 118
3.3 Some relevant texts ....................................................... 123
3.3.1 in Top.21 ............................................................... 123
3.3.2 in Top.1 0 ............................................................... 125
3.3.3 in Metaph.148 ........................................................ 126
3.3.4 in A.Pr.13-14 ........................................................ 129
3.4 Natural deduction in Alexander ................................... 131
3.5 Can matter be said to "conclude"? ............................. 136
3.5.1 Premisses as efficient causes ................................ 142
3.6 Conclusion ...................................................................... 144