Here's one place where Peirce says that /Barbara/ is not enough:
"Relatives (logic of)" in Baldwin's _Dictionary of Philosophy and
Psychology_, New York: Macmillan, 1902, DPP 2:447-450; CP 3.636-643
http://www.gnusystems.ca/BaldwinPeirce.htm#Relatives
[....] Since Kant, especially, it has been customary to say that
deduction only elicits what was implicitly thought in the premisses;
and the famous distinction of analytical and synthetical judgments
is based upon that notion. But the logic of relatives shows that
this is not the case in any other sense than one which reduces it to
an empty form of words. Matter entirely foreign to the premisses may
appear in the conclusion. Moreover, so far is it from being true, as
Kant would have it, that all reasoning is reasoning in _/Barbara/_,
that that inference itself is discovered by the microscope of
relatives to be resolvable into more than half a dozen distinct
steps. In minor points the doctrines of ordinary logic are so
constantly modified or reversed that it is no exaggeration to say
that deductive logic is completely metamorphosed by the study of
relatives.
[End quote]
Best, Ben
On 10/28/2015 12:17 PM, Christina Da Silva wrote:
I am finishing up a masters that focuses on Medieval Islamic
philosophy, and this list has been an inestimably useful resource for
me, so thank you to all who post here. I am now trying to find the
source for some information I have in my notes, and my hope is that
someone on the list can help me.
Here is my question: where does Peirce suggest that all syllogisms may
be reduced to Barbara, and where does he later renounce this idea?
Thank you,
Christina da Silva
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
