Nailing when Peirce first said one thing about Barbara, and then the
other, looks like a bit of a research project. Peirce, manuscript c.
1895, "The Logic of Quantity", CP 4.91:
[....]
But Mill is wrong in supposing that those who maintain that
arithmetical propositions are logically necessary, are therein ipso
facto saying that they are verbal in their nature. This is only the
same old idea that _/Barbara/_ in all its simplicity represents all
there is to necessary reasoning, utterly overlooking the
construction of a diagram, the mental experimentation, and the
surprising novelty of many deductive discoveries.
[.... End quote]
Best, Ben
On 10/28/2015 12:45 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
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 .
