2

I'm reading Ray Monk's biography of Wittgenstein and, on a scathing book review of Wittgenstein's, Monk writes,

There follows a list of such mistakes, which are, for the most part the weaknesses of traditional (Aristotelian) logic customarily pointed out by adherents of Russellian mathematical logic - for instance, that it assumes the copula 'is' (as in 'Socrates is mortal') with the 'is' of identity ('Twice two is four'), and so on.

I was wondering if somebody could explain these criticisms to somebody who has never studied philosophy?

  • See also the related post: Wittgenstein criticizes Coffey's work The science of logic – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Mar 20 '18 at 14:55
  • J, Hintikka has strongly opposed the received view about the differences in use of 'is' and even said plainly that it is wrong. Two of his papers: (1984) * Semantical games, the alleged ambiguity of ‘is’, and Aristotelian categories*, Synthese, vol. 54, p. 443–68; (1979) * “Is”, semantical games, and semantical relativity*, J. of Phph. Logic, vol 8, p.433–68. – sand1 Mar 20 '18 at 20:09
2

"is" in modern logic has different translations, according to the context:

(i) identity: "Socrates is the teacher of Plato".

(ii) membership: "Socrates is mortal", that means that the individual Socrates belongs to the set (or class) of mortals.

(iii) inclusion: "French are Europeans", that means that the set (or class) of French is included into (is a subset of) the set of Europeans.


Aristotelian Logic (based on the syllogism) is based on the grammatical relation of predication: Socrates is human, Plato is not a horse, horses are animals, humans are not horses:

One major difference between Aristotle’s understanding of predication and modern logic is that Aristotle treats individual predications and general predications as similar in logical form: he gives the same analysis to “Socrates is an animal” and “Humans are animals”.

  • Why do you say "grammatical relation" and simply not, e.g., "logical relation"? – Geremia Mar 20 '18 at 17:46
  • This strikes me as more or less right, although it's worth emphasizing that what distinguishes (i) - (iii) is that distinct expression types flank 'is' in each case: singular terms in (i); a singular term and a predicate in (ii); and two predicates in (iii). – possibleWorld Mar 20 '18 at 18:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.