# existential import ,and square of opposition [closed]

As far i understand existential import Aristotelian point of view universal statements should talk about things that are exist , But Boolean point of view say that we can talk about any thing . OK ?
But from both standpoints the word some implies existence .
so how they Treat the statement "some unicorns are red"
and why Boole make different standpoint of view in universal statements and keep particular the same as Aristotle ?

and by Boolean standpoint
All s are p = No member of s are outside p .
No s are p = No member of s are inside p .
and Venn diagrams will look like this

But How they will look like in Aristotelian point of view ?

then by existential import they make modern square of opposition
and only relation is contradictory i can understand why sub-alternation is
removed but i can't understand why another relation removed (sub-contrary ,
contrary )?

• Not clear.. See The Traditional Square of Opposition and Existential Import. Aug 28, 2017 at 8:24
• Aug 28, 2017 at 8:26
• my questions is 1-sub-contrary and contrary relations removed from modern square? 2- how will Venn diagrams will look in Aristotle viewpoint? 3- why Boole make this view from universal statements only ? Aug 28, 2017 at 8:49
• 1) because not very useful: contraries is the relation between "Every S is P" and "No S is P". The two are not contradictory nor in a relation of logical consequence. Aug 28, 2017 at 9:37
• For Venn diagram for syllogism, see e.g. Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, Wadsworth (11th ed 2012), page 266 and page 274. Aug 28, 2017 at 12:02