Talk:On Interpretation

Philosophy: Literature / Logic / Ancient Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Logic
	Ancient philosophy

a MAJOR issue still to be treated here

what's the relation among name, thought, thing? A problem discussed extensively by each and every medieval philosopher (boethius being the first to write about it in latin). Aristotle Int. 1: "names are symbols for the affections in the soul, and these are symbols for the things" or something like that. One of the most perplexing features of this short treatise... --zuben 10:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll add a little if I have time, otherwise, someone else please add it. JECompton (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to De Interpretatione

The article for every other work by Aristotle (as listed at Aristotle and Bekker numbers) bears the name that is used in the Revised Oxford Translation (ed. Jonathan Barnes, Princeton University Press, 1984). This is as close to a standard for referring to Aristotle's works in English as I believe one could find. I myself would prefer different names in several cases, but at Wikipedia I think using this reference is better because it gives us a neutral standard. In the Revised Oxford Translation, all the titles are in English except for De Interpretatione and Magna Moralia. In other words, the ROT shows a strong tendency to English not Latin, even for treatises like De motu animalium (Movement of Animals) that (in my experience) a great many English-speakers refer to in Latin. Indeed, an awful lot of English-speaking scholars do refer to the "De Interpretatione," and the Wikipedia naming conventions do envision a case like this, where a "form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." (By the way, this article originally was at De Interpretatione; there's no clear reason why it was ever moved here.) Wareh 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is much more likely to be unambiguous; there are at least half-a-dozen other books with this title (all of them also have a subtitle, but will that last?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the move. I feel somewhat uncomfortable with using a Latin title for a Greek work, but I see the point of having a standard for Aristotelian titles, plus De Interpretatione is traditional and recognizable. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm willing to make the move, but, for consistency, which other articles from Category:Works_of_Aristotle should be moved as well? They are all in English currently, and most are substubs. Duja► 11:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. None of the others need a move—they are all already named according to the standard I mention here. Wareh 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support the move per Wareh's rationale. Deor 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page, per the above discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions from User talk:Jean KemperNN (Monteil)

(This same editor is known as User talk:84.100.243.155, User:Jean-François Monteil de Quimper, User:Jean KemperN. See also the French equivalent of WP:AN/I here.)

In order for this addition to be usable, I think we'd need a full statement from Monteil about the degree to which it is a presentation of his own research (cf. here). Then the appropriate thing to do would be to make sure we have independent secondary sources, and unaffiliated Wikipedia editors, confirming the appropriateness of the ideas to an encylcopedic presentation of De Interpretatione. Meanwhile, it seems very likely that "many scholars think," "most important," etc., are personal perspectives that run up against guidelines such as Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_oneself. Wareh (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Jean KemperNN (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)) Here below the last and perfectly neutral text I had put into article Aristotle[reply]

Short remarks on De interpretatione, second book of the Aristotelian Organon as originating the logical square and modal logic The logical square, also called square of opposition or square of Apuleius has its origin in the four marked sentences to be employed in syllogistic reasoning: Every man is white, the universal affirmative and its negation Not every man is white (or Some men are not white), the particular negative on the one hand, Some men are white, the particular affirmative and its negation No man is white, the universal negative on the other. The study of the four propositions constituting the square is found in Chapter 7 and its appendix Chapter 8. Most important also is the immediately following Chapter 9 dealing with the problem of future contingents. This chapter and the subsequent ones are at the origin of modal logic.

Here now a French text to be found in article De l'interprétation and in article Organon on French wikipedia. It is perfectly neutral and more complete. Translated into English, it might be useful. It introduces the terms quantity and quality applied to propositions and evokes concisely the different relationships that may exist between two logical propositions of the square of opposition: contrariety, subcontrariety, contradictoriness,implication. Courtes remarques sur le De interpretatione en tant qu'il est à l'origine du carré logique et de la logique modale Le deuxième livre de l’Organon s’appelle Peri hermeneias en grec c’est-à-dire De l’interprétation en français, On interpretation en anglais. L’appellation la plus usuelle chez les érudits, c’est le titre latin De interpretatione. Ce livre introduit les concepts aristotéliciens de proposition et de jugement et étudie au chapitre 7 les quatre propositions marquées destinées à être employées dans le syllogisme. Il est question de la quantité et de la qualité d’une proposition. Pour la quantité, il y a les deux universelles: Tous les hommes sont blancs et Aucun homme n’est blanc, les deux particulières : Quelques hommes sont blancs et Quelques hommes ne sont pas blancs. Pour la qualité, il y a les deux affirmatives: Tous les hommes sont blancs et Quelques hommes sont blancs, les deux négatives: Aucun homme n’est blanc et Quelques hommes ne sont pas blancs. Il est question des relations mutuelles qui peuvent exister entre deux de ces quatre propositions. Les deux universelles sont définies comme mutuellement contraires, les deux particulières comme des subcontraires. Entre deux propositions différant à la fois en quantité et en qualité, il y a une relation de contradiction, ce qui veut dire que chacune équivaut à la négation de l’autre. Ainsi sont contradictoires la particulière affirmative Quelques hommes sont blancs et l’universelle négative Aucun homme n’est blanc. Entre une universelle d’une certaine qualité et la particulière de la même qualité, il y a une relation d’implication en vertu de laquelle l’universelle implique la particulière. Ainsi l’universelle négative Aucun homme n’est blanc implique la particulière négative Quelques hommes ne sont pas blancs. Le De interpretatione est donc important car il est à l’origine du carré logique ou carré d’Apulée. Au chapitre 9, il est question du fameux problèmes des futurs contingents et ce chapitre est suivi d’autres qui sont à l’origine de la logique modale.(Jean KemperNN (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean KemperNN (talk • contribs) 05:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Jean KemperNN (talk) 12:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC))I repeat here what I wrote on user talk page Wareh.... if my texts relative to the entry Aristotle cannot be maintained, it's no drama. We have plenty of time ahead for a sound collaboration. When I content myself with mentioning traditional notions like quality and quantity of a proposition, contrariety, contradictoriness within the square of opposition,as I do in the two texts above, no problem. The point is that having acquired some knowledge original but verifiable in the utmost degree, I tend to propose this verifiable knowledge, verifiable but, I concede, solitary for the moment. What is to be done by you ? Just wait and see. One of two things, either what I propose is important verifiable knowledge or merely interesting hypotheses. In the former case, all that will reach you some day necessarily, in the second case it does not deserve an insertion. Dear friends, wait and see. I shall return !!!![reply]

The article logical hexagon created by Gregbard. The reason why

I have created an article for Logical hexagon and refactored a large amount of material contributed by User:Jean KemperNN. The material is wonderful, but I think it is more appropriate in its own article.Greg Bard (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Jean KemperN (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Concise remarks on De interpretatione as being at the origin of the logical square and of modal logic The logical square, also called square of opposition or square of Apuleius has its origin in the four marked sentences to be employed in syllogistic reasoning: Every man is white, the universal affirmative and its negation Not every man is white (or Some men are not white), the particular negative on the one hand, Some men are white, the particular affirmative and its negation No man is white, the universal negative on the other. Robert Blanché published with Vrin his Structures intellectuelles in 1966 and since then many scholars think that the logical square representing four values should be replaced by the logical hexagon which by representing six values is a more potent figure because it has the power to explain more things about logic and natural language. The study of the four propositions constituting the square is found in Chapter 7 and its appendix Chapter 8. Most important also is the immediately following Chapter 9 dealing with the problem of future contingents. This chapter and the subsequent ones are at the origin of modal logic. Perhaps Blanché's hexagon is particularly useful in the domain of modal logic in so far as it explains clearly the nature and importance of the bilateral possible. The notion of bilateral possible is crucially important to understand both logic and natural language when applied to modal values. (Jean KemperN (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

http://erssab.u-bordeaux3.fr here http://www.grammar-and-logic.com/dossiers.php

(Jean KemperN (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)) (84.100.243.12 (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]