Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/arcp2019-5104   IUP :10.26650/arcp2019-5104    Tam Metin (PDF)

O-Köşesi Yorumu Nedir ve Geleneksel Karşıtlık Karesini Kurtarabilir mi?

Yavuz Recep Başoğlu

Geleneksel mantığı ve geleneksel karşıtlık karesini, varlıksal varsayım denen problemden kurtarmak için, mantıkçılar yüzyıllardır çözüm üretmekteler. Bu çalışmada, ilk, bildiğimiz kadarıyla tarihsel ilk çözüm olan ve 11. yüzyılda Abelard ve 2002’de Seuren tarafından önerilen sistemin aslında 14. yüzyıl mantıkçısı olan Ockham’a atfedilen geleneksel mantığın O-köşesi yorumunun bir versiyonu olduğu savunulacaktır. Daha sonra, bu iki sistemin mantıksal güçlerinin eşit olduğu iddia edilecektir. En son olarak da, Abelard ve Seuren’in sisteminin Ockham’ınkine tercih edilmesi gerektiği asıl iddiamız olacaktır.

DOI :10.26650/arcp2019-5104   IUP :10.26650/arcp2019-5104    Tam Metin (PDF)

What is the O-Corner Interpretation and Does it Save the Traditional Square of Opposition?

Yavuz Recep Başoğlu

To salvage traditional logic and traditional square of opposition from the problem of existential import, logicians have been offering solutions for centuries. In this paper, firstly it will be argued that as far as we know, the historically first solution proposed by Abelard in 11th century and by Seuren in 2002 is actually a version of the O-Corner Interpretation of traditional logic, which is generally attributed to the 14th century logician Ockham. Secondly, it will be advocated that two systems of Abelard and of Ockham have the same logical power. Lastly, the main claim will be that Abelard’s and Seuren’s system shall be favored over Ockham’s system.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Aristotle. Aristotle: Categories on interpretation. Prior analytics. Translated by Cooke, H.P., Tredennick, H. London: Harvard University Press, 1938. google scholar
  • Aristotle. Categories and De interpretatione. Translated by J.L.Ackrill. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. google scholar
  • Ashworth, E. Jeniffer. “Existential assumptions in late medieval logic.” American Philosophical Quarterly 10(2) (1973): 141-147. google scholar
  • Ashworth, E. Jennifer. Language and Logic in the Post-medieval Period. Dortrecht: Reidel Publishing, 1974. google scholar
  • Bäck, Allan. Aristotle’s theory of predication. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Caroll, Lewis. Symbolic Logic, Part I, Elementary. New York: NY Dover Publications, 1958 [1896]. google scholar
  • Chatti, Saloua and Schang, Fabian. “The cube the square and the problem of existential import.” History and Philosophy of Logic 34(2) (2013):101-132. google scholar
  • Church, Alonzo. “The history of the question of existential import of categorical propositions.” In Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1964 International Congress, edited by Y. BarHillel, 417-24. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1965. google scholar
  • Copi, Irving M. and Cohen, Carl. Introduction to Logic: Study Guide. US: Macmillan,1994. Copi, Irving M. Introduction to Logic. New York: Macmillan, 1953. google scholar
  • De Rijk, Lambertus Marie. Petrus Abaelardus, Dialectica. First Complete Edition of the Parisian Manuscript. Assen: Van Gorcum/Hak and Prakke, 1956. google scholar
  • Horn, Laurence R. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. google scholar
  • Horn, Laurence R. “All john’s children are as bald as the king of france: Existential import and the geometry of opposition.” Chicago Linguistics Society 33 (1997): 155-179. Hudson Mulder, Dwayne. “The existential assumpions of traditional logic.” History and Philosophy of Logic, 17(1-2) (1996):141-154. google scholar
  • Hughes, G. Edward. and Londey, David. The elements of formal logic. New York: Harper and Raw, 1965. google scholar
  • Johnson, William Ernest. Logic, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921. google scholar
  • Keynes, John Neville. Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic. London: Macmillan, 1906. google scholar
  • Klima, Gyula. “Existence and reference in medieval logic.” In New essays in free logic, edited by Morscher, E. and Hieke, A., 197-226. Dortrecht: Springer, 2001. google scholar
  • Klima, Gyula. John Buridan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. google scholar
  • Klima, Gyula. “Consequence”. In The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Logic, edited by Catarina Dutilh Novaes and Stephen Read, 316-41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. google scholar
  • Klima, Gyula. Ars artium: essays in philosophical semantics, mediaeval and modern. Budapest: Institute of Philosopher, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1988. google scholar
  • Kneale, William and Kneale, Martha, The development of logic. London: Oxford University Press, 1962. google scholar
  • Londey, David G. and Johanson, Carmen J. The logic of Apuleius: Including a complete Latin text and English translation of the Peri Hermeneias of Apuleius of Madaura. Leiden: Brill Archive,1987. google scholar
  • Moody, Ernest A. Truth and Consequence in Mediaeval Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1953. google scholar
  • Morrison, John J. “The existential import of a proposition in Aristotelian logic.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 15(3) (1995):386-393. google scholar
  • Ockham, W. (1998). Ockham’s Theory of Propositions: Part 2 of the Summa Logicae. Translated by Alfred J. Freddoso and Henry Shuurman. Indiana: St. Augustine’s Press, 1998. google scholar
  • Parsons, Terence. “Things that are right with the traditional square of oppositions.” Logica Universalis, 2(1) (2008) :3-11. Parsons, Terence. Articulating medieval logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. google scholar
  • Parsons, Terence. “The traditional square of opposition.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summer 2017 edition. Edited by Zalta, E.N. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2017. google scholar
  • Read, Stephan. “Aristotle and Lukasiewicz on existential import.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 1(3) (2015):535-544. google scholar
  • Seuren, Pieter A. “The logic of thinking.” Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Mededelingen van de Afdelig Letterkunde, Niuwe Reeks, 65(9) (2002):5-35. google scholar
  • Seuren, Pieter. A. The Logic of Language: Language From Within, volume 2. New York: Oxford Univerity Press, 2009. google scholar
  • Seuren, Pieter A. “Does a leaking o-corner save the square?” in Around and beyond the square of opposition, edited by Béziau, J.Y., and Jacquette, D. Basel: Springer, 2012 google scholar
  • Seuren, Pieter A. From Whorf to Montague: Explorations in the theory of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Strawson, Peter Frederick. Introduction to Logical Theory. New York: Routledge, 2011. google scholar
  • Thom, Paul. The syllogism. München: Philosophie Verlag, 1981. Thomson, Manley. “Aristotle’s square of oppositions.” Philosophical Review 62 (1953):251-265. google scholar
  • Wedin, Michael V. “Negation and quantification in Aristotle.” History and Philosophy of Logic 11(2) (1990) :131-150. google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Başoğlu, Y. (2019). O-Köşesi Yorumu Nedir ve Geleneksel Karşıtlık Karesini Kurtarabilir mi?. Felsefe Arkivi, 0(51), 37-59. https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp2019-5104


AMA

Başoğlu Y. O-Köşesi Yorumu Nedir ve Geleneksel Karşıtlık Karesini Kurtarabilir mi?. Felsefe Arkivi. 2019;0(51):37-59. https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp2019-5104


ABNT

Başoğlu, Y. O-Köşesi Yorumu Nedir ve Geleneksel Karşıtlık Karesini Kurtarabilir mi?. Felsefe Arkivi, [Publisher Location], v. 0, n. 51, p. 37-59, 2019.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Başoğlu, Yavuz Recep,. 2019. “O-Köşesi Yorumu Nedir ve Geleneksel Karşıtlık Karesini Kurtarabilir mi?.” Felsefe Arkivi 0, no. 51: 37-59. https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp2019-5104


Chicago: Humanities Style

Başoğlu, Yavuz Recep,. O-Köşesi Yorumu Nedir ve Geleneksel Karşıtlık Karesini Kurtarabilir mi?.” Felsefe Arkivi 0, no. 51 (Jun. 2024): 37-59. https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp2019-5104


Harvard: Australian Style

Başoğlu, Y 2019, 'O-Köşesi Yorumu Nedir ve Geleneksel Karşıtlık Karesini Kurtarabilir mi?', Felsefe Arkivi, vol. 0, no. 51, pp. 37-59, viewed 28 Jun. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp2019-5104


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Başoğlu, Y. (2019) ‘O-Köşesi Yorumu Nedir ve Geleneksel Karşıtlık Karesini Kurtarabilir mi?’, Felsefe Arkivi, 0(51), pp. 37-59. https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp2019-5104 (28 Jun. 2024).


MLA

Başoğlu, Yavuz Recep,. O-Köşesi Yorumu Nedir ve Geleneksel Karşıtlık Karesini Kurtarabilir mi?.” Felsefe Arkivi, vol. 0, no. 51, 2019, pp. 37-59. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp2019-5104


Vancouver

Başoğlu Y. O-Köşesi Yorumu Nedir ve Geleneksel Karşıtlık Karesini Kurtarabilir mi?. Felsefe Arkivi [Internet]. 28 Jun. 2024 [cited 28 Jun. 2024];0(51):37-59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp2019-5104 doi: 10.26650/arcp2019-5104


ISNAD

Başoğlu, Yavuz Recep. O-Köşesi Yorumu Nedir ve Geleneksel Karşıtlık Karesini Kurtarabilir mi?”. Felsefe Arkivi 0/51 (Jun. 2024): 37-59. https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp2019-5104



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim10.11.2019
Kabul24.12.2019

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.