[hist-analytic] Proving

[jlsperanza at aol.com]

For the neo-Aristotelians, and Ariskantians around us, the ref. to Manetti, 
 "Theories of the Sign in Classical Antiquity" availble googlebooks, ch. 5  
especially on Aristotle, which should do to re-read and compare to our 
current  discussions on 'epideixis':
 
Manetti starts the discussion of Aristotle on ch. 5 of his book  with the  
'semiotic triangle'. Discusses "affections". And the  distinction, 
'semantic' and  'apophantic'. 
 
Discusses 'enthymeme' (5. 2. 2) which became a central issue in Grice's  
account of 'reasoning'. He discusses etymologies of 'probable' ('eikos', what 
is  likely, cfr. eikon), etc.
 
His section 5. 2. 3. is titled "inference from the consequent"
 
Manetti then considers the "tekmerion" as sign in the first figure of  the 
syllogism" and the "semeion" in the second and third figures". 
 
Manetti ends his discussion of Aristotle with a section on 'deduction  
versus abduction'.
 
Now the next thing would be to provide some linguistic botanising on  
'epideixis' and the word it derives from "to show", as it relates to Aristotle's  
demonstration and deduction, and the model of Euclidean axiomatic 
treatments of  formal logic which were all the rage before Gentzen.
 
The overlap Peirce and Grice seems to be evident in all this emphasis on  
proving and proofs.
 
Cheers,
 
J. L. Speranza
   for the Grice Circle
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20100109/a03ab00a/attachment-0001.html>