SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

Protasis and Apophansis in Aristotle’s Logic

Murat Kelikli(Bartın University)
Pages
1–17
Publication Date
2018-06-23
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The structural difference between De Interpretatione and Analytica Priora are revealed through a careful examination of Aristotle’s use of these two concepts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Normal 0 21 false false false TR X-NONE AR-SA /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Normal Tablo"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} This essay examines how Aristotle creates propositions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It evaluates his use of quality and quantity in his theory of syllogism.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The structural difference between De Interpretatione and Analytica Priora are revealed through a careful examination of Aristotle’s use of these two concepts.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Proposition · protasis · apophansis

Abstract

Normal 0 21 false false false TR X-NONE AR-SA /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Normal Tablo"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} This essay examines how Aristotle creates propositions. It evaluates his use of quality and quantity in his theory of syllogism. In De Interpretatione, Aristotle used the term, ‘apophansis’, but he preferred ‘protasis’ in Analytica Priora. While Aristotle classified these as affirmative and negative due to their qualities, he embraced a different point of view about classifications based on quantity. Differences in apophansis are evaluated on the basis of their singular and universal structures, and their predications are also taken into consideration. As he studied protasis, however, he re-arranged the classifications of apophansis and re-shaped them according to their predicative properties. The structural difference between De Interpretatione and Analytica Priora are revealed through a careful examination of Aristotle’s use of these two concepts.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kelikli, M. (2018). Protasis and Apophansis in Aristotle’s Logic. Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18491/beytulhikme.435938

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Aristotle (1938). Categories. On Interpretation. Prior Analytics. (Trans. H. P. Cooke & H. Tredennick). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  2. Aristotle (1949). Aristotelis Categoriae et Liber de Interpretatione. (Ed. L. Minio-Paluello). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  3. Aristotle (1964). Aristotelis Analytica Priora et Posteriora. (Eds. W. D. Ross & L. Minio-Paluello). Clarendon Press.
  4. Aristotle (2014). Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. 1. (Ed. J. Barnes). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
  5. Corcoran, J. & Boger, G. (2011). Protasis in Prior Analytics: Proposition or Premise? Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 17, 151-152.
  6. Crivelli, P. & Charles, D. (2011). ‘ΠΡΟΤΑΣΙΣ’ in Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Phronesis, 56 (3), 193-203.
  7. Hamilton, W. (1860). Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, vol. 2. London: Blackwood.
  8. Hamlyn, D. W. (1961). Aristotle on Predication. Phronesis, 6 (2): 110-126.
  9. Ibn-Sīnā. (1984). Remarks and Admonitions: Part One: Logic. (Trans. S. C. Inati). Toronto: Pointifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
  10. Łukasiewicz, J. (1957). Aristotle's Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  11. Venn, J. (1881). Symbolic Logic. London: Macmillan & Co.
  12. Whitaker, C. W. A. (2002). Aristotle's De Interpretatione: Contradiction and Dialectic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  13. Williamson, C. (1988). How Many Syllogisms Are There? History and Philosophy of Logic, 9, 77-85.