The Function of Logic in Philosophy

by Franc

"Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives-choice, not chance, determines your destiny."-Aristotle.

Logic is the sole inducement of the establishment of reasonable thought. Thus, it is the natural function of philosophy. What shall be elaborated by this concept is a systematic order of thinking. I shall discuss the criterion of logic that best defines the conception of logos in my rumination. To describe the concept of logic, we must first acknowledge the principal application of induction. To comprehend the entire effect of logic, we must accentuate the necessity of deduction. By expounding on the material, we shall attempt to cogitate from Aristotle's Organon the topics of logic first, so that the premise of my argument be based, on a coherentific form of substance and noesis. I must establish that the Organon was used in the school founded by Aristotle at the Lyceum in Ancient Greece and has influenced not only me, but as well, the teachings of prominent Christian, Islamic and Jewish scholars. The physics of science and the metaphysics of philosophy have benefited from the Organon, during the history of mankind.

The Categories introduces Aristotle's 10-fold classification of that which is existential: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, situation, condition, action, and passion or relativity, as I prefer to utilise instead of the word passion. In the brilliant postpraedicamenta Aristotle established four ways things could be said or determined to be opposed, and discussed five senses wherein a thing may be considered prior to another, followed by a brief part on simultaneity. Thus, six forms of movement were defined: generation, destruction, increase, diminution, alteration, and change of place. If we categorised logic into a diairesis to systematise concepts and reach definitions, then the elements of logic would be categorised in a taxonomy. I shall offer my prudent interpretation on the following elements, within a constructive structure of rationality and adherence that allow the readers to be deliberational in their reflection and not merely denegative. We shall begin the explication of its practical relativity, with the concept of substance.

Substance is basically matter and therefore can be deduced to signify the essence of existence. Quantity is the sufficient amount of that existential matter and is relative to form. Quality is the distinction of the matter and can be defined by form. Relation is the interaction of matter and form. Place is the point of the convergence of matter and form. Time is the concomitant force that retains matter. Situation is the probability of the existential matter. Condition is the actuality of that matter. Action is the fulfillment of the form of that matter. Relativity is the connection, between matter and form that describes existence. Existence depends on these elements to subsist, within a reasonable pattern of logic and metaphysics.

On Interpretation introduces Aristotle's noscible conception of a proposition and judgement, along with the various relations between affirmative, negative, universal, and particular propositions in their entirety. We are cognisant that with the introduction of a proposition, the content of an assertion that is either true or false, and considered abstract is analysed, with a meticulous solicitude and interpretation. An Aristotelian proposition is merely a predicate of a subject that is denied or affirmed and connected by a copula. For example, "Men are humans." "Men are women." They are two examples of what propositions consists of; although the proposition can be universal and particular in its ultimate signification, such as in the examples, "Men are born men. Men are not women."

Therefore, once we have established the criterion of the proposition, then we can understand the criterion of judgement. When we refer to judgement, we are naturally discussing the relevancy and validity of that proposition to our rationality and thought. Consequently, we can perceive with our conscious and logical judgement the adducible relations between affirmative, negative, universal, and particular propositions. Once this is fully established with our judgement, we are able to determine the significance of each proposition and its variables. In the end the proposition evolves into a tentative and putative union, between constructs that are stated in a demonstrative form that involves our judgement.

The Prior Analytics introduces a syllogistic method that argues for its correctness and discusses the decided method of inductive inference. Example "All human beings are mortal. I am a human being. Therefore a human being is mortal." A syllogism is basically, an argument whose conclusion is supported by two premises, of which one contains the term that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other contains the term that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term that is excluded from the conclusion. A categorical syllogism consists of three parts: a major premise, a minor premise and a basic conclusion. Each part is a categorical proposition, and each categorical proposition contains two categorical terms. To Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form "All A are B," "Some A are B", "No A are B" or "Some A are not B", where "A" is one term and "B" is another. "All A are B," and "No A are B" are termed universal propositions; "Some A are B" and "Some A are not B" are termed particular propositions.

A sorite is a series of propositions whereby each conclusion is taken, as the subject of the next. An antilogism is a false syllogism. Apodictic propositions contrast with assertoric propositions, which simply assert that something is or is not veracious, and with problematic propositions, which assert only the probability of something being veracious. Thus, the logic of apodicticity is applied to the lemma of any argument to disprove a paralogy. Logic is the basis of numerous principles, including the scientific method, distinctive forms of rhetorical propositions and numerical variables. The study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and induction are essential in the teachings of philosophy.

The Posterior Analytics deals with demonstration, definition, and scientific knowledge. It is a logical method designed to analyse the condition of a subject, in an apriori state that has manifested its existence. For example, if we acquired a form of knowledge, then we must procure to acknowledge its basis. If we applied this to logic, thus we would surmise the existence of that particular knowledge to be demonstrated and defined, as that knowledge. Aristotle has four principal questions in his Posterior Analytics that were relevant. The specific things that determine the kinds of questions that relate to knowledge, which are: Whether the relation of a property with a thing is accurate? What is the rationality of this connection? Whether a thing exists or not? What is the actual nature and meaning of the thing that is existential? These intrinsic questions are vital in the comprehension of knowledge.

The Topics deals with intellectual approaches in constructing valid arguments, endoxas, endoxons and inferences that are probable, rather than certain. It is in this treatise that Aristotle mentions the Predicables, later discussed by the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry and the scholastic logicians. Aristotle mentioned the preliminary principles upon which dialectical argumentation proceeds its course. After defining syllogism and distinguishing it from demonstrative, contentious, and non-syllogistic forms, Aristotle noted the utility and effectiveness of the art of dialectic. He then established four important bases (accident, property, genus, definition), from which invention of such reasoning proceeds in the criterion of our arguments. Aristotle expounded on various senses of "uniformity", as connected directly to the usual method of such arguments. Dialectical propositions and dialectical problems are elucidated in this manner. Thus, the organon or instrument by which arguments may be ascertaned are described, in a four-fold summary, as: the provision of propositions, the discovery of the number of senses of a term, the discovery of differences and the investigation of similarities. When we address the subject of topics, we are simply addressing the criterion of the argument. For example, if we were to construct a valid argument, we would require the Predicables, in order for the validity of that argument to be logical and not illogical. When we mention an inference, we are describing the inference, as contingent then certain. For example, when we have understood the Predicable of the argument, then the illation of that argument is logically concluded to be either probable or certain in its substance.

The Sophistical Refutations discusses the premise of logical fallacies and provides a significant link to Aristotle's work on the specific theme of rhetoric. When studying the criterion of Aristotelian refutation, we must address the commonality of the premise and what is a refutation predicated on that acknowledges that premise. In order to treat the subject of deductive reasoning Aristotle had defined the fallacies in the usage of language, as equivocation, amphibology, composition, division, accent and figure of speech or form of expression utilised. The distinction between a logical and illogical premise is established, in logical fallacies and forms of rhetoric. For example, an argument can be perceived as a fallacy, but can be elaborated as being logical on the basis of its relevance. With respect to the system of rhetoric, we could persist and be persuasive with sophism, but the premise must be a continuation of that apodictic consistency.

Principle of contradiction. Philosophy must as well take into consideration the axioms and principles of transparent demonstration. The principle of contradiction cannot be proved, but it is possible to refel its negation. Equally, it is feasible to contend the relativism of Protagoras. The evidence of principle of the excluded middle. Criticism that everything is wrong or that everything is true. Aristotle had believed that there are numerous Intelligences of distinct spheres. The Divine Intellect is Thought of Thought. Mathematical logic, modal logic, temporal logic, deontic logic, and relevance logic, empirical methods by apodictic proof. If we analysed the relativity of the effect of any form of contradiction, then we could better comprehend the criterion of its usance. For example, we are conscious of the effect of redundancy in the criterion of an argument, but we fail to understand the relativity of that immediate contradiction. We cannot understand the relative predicate, as the variable and the subject as invariable in an argument that is not based on logic. Therefore, the specificity of the principle of an aporia is determined as inconclusive. In the realm of our common sense the criterion of contradiction is better understood, as a rhetorical form of refutation than a logical proposition inferred. Socrates' elenchus is in my estimation, not contradictory to the application of an effective method and tautalogical use of rhetoric in its crudity, when that rhetoric is consistent and productive in its entelechial form. It does not imply the usage of a syllepsis or toposes, with some rhetorical formulas.

Parmenides advocated logos as the means to universal truth and Heraclitus stated that human beings were unable to understand the premise and structure of logos. Zeno devised a method of proof known, as reductio ad absurdum and Plato posed three viable questions about logic. What is it that can essentially be called true or false? What is the nature of the explicable concatenation, between the assumptions of a valid argument and its predicted conclusion? What is the absolute nature of the definition of logic?

Plato was the first formal logician, in that he discerned the main principles of reasoning, by using variables to demonstrate the underlying logical form of an argument. He sought relations of dependence which characterise necessary inference and distinguished the validity of these relations, from the veracity of the premises. He was the first to deal, with the emergent principles of contradiction and had excluded the middle in a systematic manner. When we address the issue of meaning and universal truth, the Aristotelian logic is more meaningful in my candid admission.

To quadrate rhetoric with logic and mere putation, the systematicity must coincide, with the entelechy of that potentiality. The influence and pronoia of logos are vastly implemented, in the schematic nature of the mind and the synechistic process of logic. Logic is not an act of faith or devotion, neither is it conditioned to either of them. It is the sequential order that has materialised, into the uniformity of thought and is the basic foundation of the organon of logos. Logic can transform into noimosyne, from the capacity of the human mind.

With the cohesive structure of logic we acquire the meaning of such things, as the insignificance of a philautic thought, an epagogical polemic, the epiphoras or epistrophes of rhetoric, the oikeiosis of the mind, the epikeia of logic, the hypolemma improvised in the syllogism, the quiddity of philosophy, the hermeneutical illation of a theorem and zetetic approach of enquiry, the induction of the organon of Aristotle, the heuristic method, the telic and peirastic thought, the dyslogistic refutations and expatiations of the sciolism of nullifidians, the eclectic corrolary of thought, the a fortiori of the dianoia attached to the process of thinking etc.

With the advent of logos, our thinking has received a system that defines the essence of logic. We learn by rote or ordalium, the purpose of thought and thus, by the usage of logic, we establish the function of logos. We are irroborated and sophronised, with gnosis and phronesis that is conceptualised, by a form of hypoleptic thought. Logic is the inducement for any rational conclusion predicated on its premise. Whether it is epideictic or dianoetic in nature is based, on the criterion that is either a posteriori or a priori in its application and form.

Verily as a philonoist, I believe we are capable of exploring our minds with the structure of logic to achieve knowledge that is acquired, by logical inferences and variables that are connected to the premise of that intelligible deduction. The reference to the thinking of the pandeia of the phronisteries of Ancient Greece is a reference to the philosophical minds of perspicacious thoughts reflective of a propadeutic teaching by philosophers. Logic is an attainable form of a deducible inference that accentuates our perspicuity and consciousness. There is the absurd notion that logic cannot function completely, since our minds are in conflict daily with the intrinsicality of our emotions.

Hence, logic is considered an alogism and invalid by sceptics, who contend the validity and asseveration of its method. Naturally, with any argument there are protreptical forms of enthymemes and enantioses that may be construed, as a parlogism or erotesis, by the observer. Nevertheless, this does not define the criterion of the argument of logic as a visible contradiction, because the criterion is established as actual and not merely probable. With the introduction of the syllogism that is designed to ascertain expository illations that avoid the prolepsis to a doxastic antithesis within that argument, we can certainly clarify the premise. If we were to aphorise the concept of a thought, the inference could be interpreted as dilogical or logical. A maxim is not a prevarication of any unreasonable deduction, when the maxim is implied and defined.

In the consectaneous process of the lectical orismology of the Organon, we discover in our conclusion that logic is the anapodictic method to the erotectic process of any argument. As a pragmatist, I concur with the practice of dialectics and maieutics, as a logical reference that defines the method, practicality and effectiveness of rhetorical enquiry. Thus, the stocheion of logic is better understood in the application of thought. The apodicticity of logic is not to be postulated, by any antilogism, parvescient subjectivity, the innominate theories of science or hypotheses that contradict the constatation of an exponible epagoge. Any manifestation of antinomies can be determined, as either necessary or unnecessary.

Logic is a didactic reference for our mind and consciousness. It is not an axiom or solecism disputed, because it is the optimality of an illative thought established. There are metabases that occur in rhetoric, even though the premise is defined, as a subintelligetur and a synthesis. Rhetoric can be implied as an antonym, since its relevance is often vague to the noscible observer. Thus, the aesthesis of any elenctic response cannot be measured, by a consectary form of rhetorical elenchus that obstricts the premise. It is important to affirm that logic is not the inusitation of the metemperical nature of the development of the mind, the devagation or the desuetude of the mind, instead it is governed by the predicate of our nous and synesis that recognises logic, as the elementary noesis to any measure of plerophory.

In the datum established logic is the foundation for knowledge and wisdom that controls the animus of our behaviour and instinctive reactions. We learn as a sophos in the states of sophy, the meaning of diasophic and pansophic wisdom. In the philosophical teachings of logic inculcated, we discover the apophansis of logic, the symperasma of a thesis, the meaning of an antiphasis, the hyparchein method of logic, scibility, the value of psychagogic memory, adjectitious facts, hylozoism, hylism, the nomological thought, synennoisis, katanoesis, endosynnoisis, a logical adhibition, the pleonasm of an argument, non-doxastic enquiry, antimonic propositions, quoddamodotative thoughts, the criterion of quondam experiences, the relativity of the oneiric state of the mind, the intrinsicality of rational thought, the symbiotic nature of logic, the apodictic pysmaticity, non sequiturs, the usage of logic with encrateia, the postulation of the universal truth that is not ex hypothesi, the tropes of metaphysics etc.

Aristotle's forms of logic as well as mine are designed to averruncate eristic rhetoric and epoches that do not support the firm structure of logic. We all must be beholden to the prohairesis that accompanies logos. Logic is the hypostasis of thought and not a stochastic process of the involute nature of the mind. To discuss the implex structure of the hierarchy of logic, we must involve its hypokeimenon, as it pertains to our percipience, prescience, sapience, sentience and its autexousious capacity. When we are conscious of these properties, we are able to understand that percipience is perception, prescience is foresight, sapience is wisdom and sentience is experimentation.

Quod erat demonstrandum, the empiricutic nature of any syncatathesis of an argument must include ratiocination that begins and abates with logic. Its praxis is the deictic element to our comprehension and not a quiddative desition of an axiomatic rebuttal, within the syntomy of an argument. The dianoetic nature of logic can be perceived in our bouleusis, with the haeccity of its relevance that is conveyed, by our mental dynamy and ipologism.

Logic can manifest in the sententious or adducible form of a philosopheme, dialexis or antiphasis. Quoad hoc, the metonymic comparison of logic to synallatic thoughts or traboccant thoughts that are associated to emotions are deduced, as illogical. Unstable emotions are not a reflection of a trace of logic, instead the inscience of our assuefaction. Without reason and thoughts our emotions can result anaerectic and inordinate to our hexis, within an inscrutable nature. This expressed opinion was shared by the philosophy of stoicism. Metriopatheia is thus required, but is more per se of a psychological aspect than philosophical in comparison.

When we address the issue of meaning and truth to logic, the Aristotelian logic that the Peripathics were instructed is more meaningful and provides us the method of the entelechy of that potentiality and alethic modality. The instrument of logic is conditioned to the accessibility of its imperative usage that does not obviate its purpose. Dialetheism is not necessarily the rejection of logic, but it is not reflective of the quiddity of the philosophy of logic.

It is evident that within the centuries that have elapsed, new forms of logic have been created and intelligised, but its quiddity for the most part has remained identical, with the exception of its prime introduction. The distinction between one form of logic to another is specified, in its defined conceptualisation and inference. Logic is a state of singularity, but its extension is discovered, with the plurality of consistent thoughts. Ethics is associated to life, Logos to thought and Metaphysics to our reality.

Therefore, within the properties of logos, there are existential attributes that are associated with its premise. From the plethora of these thoughts, our concepts are either interpreted, as certain or abstract in composition. When we mention knowledge, we are describing its function and not the cyclopaedia per se. There are in my analysis six types of knowledge. Artificial Knowledge obtained by ultracrepidarianism, Theoretical Knowledge obtained by theories, Superior Knowledge obtained by wisdom, Natural Knowledge obtained by experience, Developing Knowledge obtained by study, and Practical Knowledge obtained by observation.

Each of these forms of knowledge has attributes that are recognised in its teaching. The established methods of any effective teaching in my conclusion are the following, Propaedeutic (instructional), Apodictic (demonstrative), Heuristic (practical), Telic (specific), Epideictic (rhetorical), and Systematic (logical). Propaedeutic Knowledge is that knowledge that is instructed. Apodictic Knowledge is that knowledge that is demonstrated. Heuristic Knowledge is that knowledge that is practical. Telic Knowledge is that knowledge that is specific. And Systematic Knowledge is that knowledge that is logical. Within the branches of philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, political philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, ontology, logos, rhetoric and aesthetics require the implementation of logic, so that the subject be understood as reasonable.

With wisdom, there are two key subtypes of wisdom known as phronesis and sophia postulated that are reflected, in their qualities and representation. There are in my relativistic analysis of wisdom five degrees of wisdom. Hemisophic wisdom that is to be half-wise, Morosophic wisdom that is to be foolishly wise, Diasophic wisdom that is to be very wise, Hyposophic wisdom that is to be exceedingly wise, and finally Pansophic wisdom that is to be only very learnt. Thymosophy is the quintessential form of practical wisdom.

In every discipline of human knowledge, we seek to establish an order, in a logical manner that can be fully understood. Aristotle discussed his types of syllogisms that are known today, as the analytic method and the dialectic method. The Organon was Aristotle's body of work on logic, with the Prior Analytics constituting the first significant work in formal logic, introducing the syllogistic. Today logic is divided into four types of logic, informal, formal, symbolic, and mathematical. However, I prefer the philosophical sense of logic that I assume to be Conceptual Logic that is based on the concept and not the content, Inferential Logic that is based on the inference, with the absolute content, Predicated Logic based on the predicate of the content, and Systematic Logic based on the system of the content.

When describing the constitution of intellect, we address its necessary introduction to logos. Intellect is an attribute that is innate, but intelligence is an attribute acquired. The difference is in the interpretation and the usage of each application. There are in my consideration of intellect ten fundamental properties of this element of logos in its collation. Eidos (form), Aition (cause), Hypolepsis (conception), Facundity (eloquence), Aesthesis (perception), Dynamicity (condition), Adhibition (application), Hypostasis (foundation), Katanoisis (comprehension), and Noema (recognition).

Consciousness is another property of logos that is associated to logic. In simplistic terms, what the mind could perceive, the conscious could interpret at will, with effectiveness and particularity. In my assumption and interpretation of the subject, I have concluded that there are five states of absolute consciousness, sentience, cognisance, percipience, subjectivity, and expergefaction. It is relative to denote that the states of consciousness are attached to the states of the mortal and immortal soul. If we applied any advanced form of these states of consciousness, then our mind would be more active than usual.

Thought is a fundamental property of logos and applied to logic. Without thought our minds are emerged, in a senseless vacuity that relies on the dependency of our instinct. Thinking allows us to comprehend, interpret, and represent the engrossing capacity of logos that is reflective of thought. Aristotle had stated three forms of thinking that were relative to the process of logos. Productive thinking that is engaged in producing thought, Practical thinking that is engaged, in deciding what to do with that thought and finally, Theoretical thinking that is engaged, in what is known of that thought. All rational thoughts that are productive are welcomed, in the philomathic nature of logic.

There are six different types of thought I have categorised as, Perirastic Thought (experimental), Heuristic Thought (problem solving), Telic Thought (aimed at a goal), Dianoetic Thought (reasonable), Alogistic Thought (illogical), and Epideictic Thought (rhetorical). A Peirastic Thought is something we experiment. A Heuristic Thought is used in solving problems. A Telic Thought is aimed at establishing a goal. Dianoetic Thought is specified through reason. An Alogistic Thought is a futile thought. An Epideictic Thought is used in rhetoric. All of these types of thoughts are relative to the expressibility of the nature of the mind, when we refer thoughts to mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness and their absolute connection.

In concluding this particular thesis, I have acknowledged the valid elements of logic and its function in accordance to the mind. Logic is intended to resolve any argument that could result as Sisyphean or being a symbol of an incoherent trope. It has a very efficient hairesis that is structured and should not be related to any philosophical measure of nonism or ampelophilosophy. Philosophy is the rational investigation of logic, ethics, and metaphysics that deals, with the endeia within humanity. Thus, what is prescribed in the process of logic as noesis, concept, inception, inference, introduction, deduction, pysmaticity, peirasticity, nous, diairesis, cognition, hermeneutics is attributed to the efficacious system of logic. The mind cannot function intellectually, if there is no continuation of an established system or paradigm as a general rule, for its ultimate purpose, ornum, sophrosyne and metaphysical mechanism. Ergo, this is the sui generis function of logic in philosophy.

Rate this submission


You must be logged in to rate submissions

Loading Comments