In its earliest form (defined byAristotle in his 350 BC bookPrior Analytics), a deductive syllogism arises when two true premises (propositions or statements) validly imply a conclusion, or the main point that the argument aims to get across.[1] For example, knowing that all men are mortal (major premise), and thatSocrates is a man (minor premise), we may validly conclude that Socrates is mortal. Syllogistic arguments are usually represented in a three-line form:
All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.[2]
In antiquity, two rival syllogistic theories existed:Aristotelian syllogism andStoic syllogism.[3] From theMiddle Ages onwards,categorical syllogism andsyllogism were usually used interchangeably. This article is concerned only with this historical use. The syllogism was at the core of historical deductive reasoning, whereby facts are determined by combining existing statements, in contrast toinductive reasoning, in which facts are predicted by repeated observations.
Within some academic contexts, syllogism has been superseded byfirst-order predicate logic following the work ofGottlob Frege, in particular hisBegriffsschrift (Concept Script; 1879). Syllogism, being a method of valid logical reasoning, will always be useful in most circumstances, and for general-audience introductions to logic and clear-thinking.[4][5]
Aristotle defines the syllogism as "a discourse in which certain (specific) things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so."[6] Despite this very general definition, inPrior Analytics Aristotle limits himself to categorical syllogisms that consist of threecategorical propositions, including categoricalmodal syllogisms.[7]
The use of syllogisms as a tool for understanding can be dated back to the logical reasoning discussions ofAristotle. Before the mid-12th century, medieval logicians were only familiar with a portion of Aristotle's works, including such titles asCategories andOn Interpretation, works that contributed heavily to the prevailing Old Logic, orlogica vetus. The onset of a New Logic, orlogica nova, arose alongside the reappearance ofPrior Analytics, the work in which Aristotle developed his theory of the syllogism.
Prior Analytics, upon rediscovery, was instantly regarded by logicians as "a closed and complete body of doctrine", leaving very little for thinkers of the day to debate, and reorganize. Aristotle's theory on the syllogism forassertoric sentences was considered especially remarkable, with only small systematic changes occurring to the concept over time. This theory of the syllogism would not enter the context of the more comprehensive logic of consequence until logic began to be reworked in general in the mid-14th century by the likes ofJohn Buridan.
Aristotle'sPrior Analytics did not, however, incorporate such a comprehensive theory on the modal syllogism—a syllogism that has at least onemodalized premise, that is, a premise containing the modal wordsnecessarily,possibly, orcontingently. Aristotle's terminology in this aspect of his theory was deemed vague, and in many cases unclear, even contradicting some of his statements fromOn Interpretation. His original assertions on this specific component of the theory were left up to a considerable amount of conversation, resulting in a wide array of solutions put forth by commentators of the day. The system for modal syllogisms laid forth by Aristotle would ultimately be deemed unfit for practical use, and would be replaced by new distinctions and new theories altogether.
Boethius (c. 475–526) contributed an effort to make the ancient Aristotelian logic more accessible. While his Latin translation ofPrior Analytics went primarily unused before the 12th century, his textbooks on the categorical syllogism were central to expanding the syllogistic discussion. Rather than in any additions that he personally made to the field, Boethius' logical legacy lies in his effective transmission of prior theories to later logicians, as well as his clear and primarily accurate presentations of Aristotle's contributions.
Another of medieval logic's first contributors from the Latin West,Peter Abelard (1079–1142), gave his own thorough evaluation of the syllogism concept, and accompanying theory in theDialectica—a discussion of logic based on Boethius' commentaries and monographs. His perspective on syllogisms can be found in other works as well, such asLogica Ingredientibus. With the help of Abelard's distinction betweende dicto modal sentences andde re modal sentences, medieval logicians began to shape a more coherent concept of Aristotle's modal syllogism model.
The French philosopherJean Buridan (c. 1300 – 1361), whom some consider the foremost logician of the later Middle Ages, contributed two significant works:Treatise on Consequence andSummulae de Dialectica, in which he discussed the concept of the syllogism, its components and distinctions, and ways to use the tool to expand its logical capability. For 200 years after Buridan's discussions, little was said about syllogistic logic. Historians of logic have assessed that the primary changes in the post-Middle Age era were changes in respect to the public's awareness of original sources, a lessening of appreciation for the logic's sophistication and complexity, and an increase in logical ignorance—so that logicians of the early 20th century came to view the whole system as ridiculous.[8]
The Aristotelian syllogism dominated Western philosophical thought for many centuries. Syllogism itself is about drawing valid conclusions from assumptions (axioms), rather than about verifying the assumptions. However, people over time focused on the logic aspect, forgetting the importance of verifying the assumptions.
In the 17th century,Francis Bacon emphasized that experimental verification of axioms must be carried out rigorously, and cannot take syllogism itself as the best way to draw conclusions in nature.[9] Bacon proposed a more inductive approach to the observation of nature, which involves experimentation, and leads to discovering and building on axioms to create a more general conclusion.[9] Yet, a full method of drawing conclusions in nature is not the scope of logic or syllogism, and the inductive method was covered in Aristotle's subsequent treatise, thePosterior Analytics.
In the 19th century, modifications to syllogism were incorporated to deal withdisjunctive ("A or B") andconditional ("if A then B") statements.Immanuel Kant famously claimed, inLogic (1800), that logic was the one completed science, and that Aristotelian logic more or less included everything about logic that there was to know. (This work is not necessarily representative of Kant's mature philosophy, which is often regarded as an innovation to logic itself.) Kant's opinion stood unchallenged in the West until 1879, whenGottlob Frege published hisBegriffsschrift (Concept Script). This introduced a calculus, a method of representing categorical statements (and statements that are not provided for in syllogism as well) by the use of quantifiers and variables.
A noteworthy exception is the logic developed inBernard Bolzano's workWissenschaftslehre (Theory of Science, 1837), the principles of which were applied as a direct critique of Kant, in the posthumously published workNew Anti-Kant (1850). The work of Bolzano had been largely overlooked until the late 20th century, among other reasons, because of the intellectual environment at the time inBohemia, which was then part of theAustrian Empire. In the last 20 years, Bolzano's work has resurfaced and become subject of both translation and contemporary study.
One notable exception to this modern relegation is the continued application of Aristotelian logic by officials of theCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Apostolic Tribunal of theRoman Rota, which still requires that any arguments crafted by Advocates be presented in syllogistic format.
George Boole's unwavering acceptance of Aristotle's logic is emphasized by the historian of logicJohn Corcoran in an accessible introduction toLaws of Thought.[10][11] Corcoran also wrote a point-by-point comparison ofPrior Analytics andLaws of Thought.[12] According to Corcoran, Boole fully accepted and endorsed Aristotle's logic. Boole's goals were "to go under, over, and beyond" Aristotle's logic by:[12]
providing it with mathematical foundations involving equations;
extending the class of problems it could treat, as solving equations was added to assessingvalidity; and
expanding the range of applications it could handle, such as expanding propositions of only two terms to those having arbitrarily many.
More specifically, Boole agreed with whatAristotle said; Boole's 'disagreements', if they might be called that, concern what Aristotle did not say. First, in the realm of foundations, Boole reduced Aristotle's four propositional forms to one form, the form of equations, which by itself was a revolutionary idea. Second, in the realm of logic's problems, Boole's addition of equation solving to logic—another revolutionary idea—involved Boole's doctrine that Aristotle's rules of inference (the "perfect syllogisms") must be supplemented by rules for equation solving. Third, in the realm of applications, Boole's system could handle multi-term propositions and arguments, whereas Aristotle could handle only two-termed subject-predicate propositions and arguments. For example, Aristotle's system could not deduce: "No quadrangle that is a square is a rectangle that is a rhombus" from "No square that is a quadrangle is a rhombus that is a rectangle" or from "No rhombus that is a rectangle is a square that is a quadrangle."
Each part is acategorical proposition, and each categorical proposition contains two categorical terms.[13] In Aristotle, each of the premises is in the form "All S are P," "Some S are P", "No S are P" or "Some S are not P", where "S" is the subject-term and "P" is the predicate-term:
More modern logicians allow some variation. Each of the premises has one term in common with the conclusion: in a major premise, this is themajor term (i.e., thepredicate of the conclusion); in a minor premise, this is theminor term (i.e., the subject of the conclusion). For example:
Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
Conclusion/Consequent: All Greeks are mortal.
Each of the three distinct terms represents a category. From the example above,humans,mortal, andGreeks:mortal is the major term, andGreeks the minor term. The premises also have one term in common with each other, which is known as themiddle term; in this example,humans. Both of the premises are universal, as is the conclusion.
Major premise: All mortals die.
Minor premise: All men are mortals.
Conclusion/Consequent: All men die.
Here, the major term isdie, the minor term ismen, and the middle term ismortals. Again, both premises are universal, hence so is the conclusion.
A polysyllogism, or asorites, is a form of argument in which a series of incomplete syllogisms is so arranged that the predicate of each premise forms the subject of the next until the subject of the first is joined with the predicate of the last in the conclusion. For example, one might argue that all lions are big cats, all big cats are predators, and all predators are carnivores. To conclude that therefore all lions are carnivores is to construct a sorites argument.
There are infinitely many possible syllogisms, but only 256 logically distinct types and only 24 valid types (enumerated below). A syllogism takes the form (note: M – Middle, S – subject, P – predicate.):
Major premise: All M are P.
Minor premise: All S are M.
Conclusion/Consequent: All S are P.
The premises and conclusion of a syllogism can be any of four types, which are labeled by letters[14] as follows. The meaning of the letters is given by the table:
code
quantifier
subject
copula
predicate
type
example
A
All
S
are
P
universal affirmative
All humans are mortal.
E
No
S
are
P
universal negative
No humans are perfect.
I
Some
S
are
P
particular affirmative
Some humans are healthy.
O
Some
S
arenot
P
particular negative
Some humans are not old.
InPrior Analytics, Aristotle uses mostly the letters A, B, and C (Greek lettersalpha,beta, andgamma) as term placeholders, rather than giving concrete examples. It is traditional to useis rather thanare as thecopula, henceAll A is B rather thanAll As are Bs. It is traditional and convenient practice to use a, e, i, o asinfix operators so the categorical statements can be written succinctly. The following table shows the longer form, the succinct shorthand, and equivalent expressions in predicate logic:
Form
Shorthand
Predicate logic
All A are B
AaB
or
No A are B
AeB
or
Some A are B
AiB
Some A are not B
AoB
The convention here is that the letter S is the subject of the conclusion, P is the predicate of the conclusion, and M is the middle term. The major premise links M with P and the minor premise links M with S. However, the middle term can be either the subject or the predicate of each premise where it appears. The differing positions of the major, minor, and middle terms gives rise to another classification of syllogisms known as thefigure. Given that in each case the conclusion is S-P, the four figures are:
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Major premise
M–P
P–M
M–P
P–M
Minor premise
S–M
S–M
M–S
M–S
(Note, however, that following Aristotle's treatment of the figures, some logicians, such asPeter Abelard andJean Buridan, do not regard the fourth figure as distinct from the first.)
Putting it all together, there are 256 possible types of syllogisms (or 512 if the order of the major and minor premises is changed, though this makes no difference logically). Each premise and the conclusion can be of type A, E, I or O, and the syllogism can be any of the four figures. A syllogism can be described briefly by giving the letters for the premises and conclusion followed by the number for the figure. For example, the syllogism BARBARA below is AAA-1, or "A-A-A in the first figure".
The vast majority of the 256 possible forms of syllogism are invalid (the conclusion does notfollow logically from the premises). The table below shows the valid forms. Even some of these are sometimes considered to commit theexistential fallacy, meaning they are invalid if they mention an empty category. These controversial patterns are marked initalics. All but four of the patterns in italics (felapton, darapti, fesapo and bamalip) are weakened moods, i.e. it is possible to draw a stronger conclusion from the premises.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Barbara
Cesare
Datisi
Calemes
Celarent
Camestres
Disamis
Dimatis
Darii
Festino
Ferison
Fresison
Ferio
Baroco
Bocardo
Calemos
Barbari
Cesaro
Felapton
Fesapo
Celaront
Camestros
Darapti
Bamalip
The letters A, E, I, and O have been used since themedieval Schools to formmnemonic names for the forms as follows: 'Barbara' stands for AAA, 'Celarent' for EAE, etc.
Next to each premise and conclusion is a shorthand description of the sentence. So in AAI-3, the premise "All squares are rectangles" becomes "MaP"; the symbols mean that the first term ("square") is the middle term, the second term ("rectangle") is the predicate of the conclusion, and the relationship between the two terms is labeled "a" (All M are P).
The following table shows all syllogisms that are essentially different. The similar syllogisms share the same premises, just written in a different way. For example "Some pets are kittens" (SiM inDarii) could also be written as "Some kittens are pets" (MiS in Datisi).
In the Venn diagrams, the black areas indicate no elements, and the red areas indicate at least one element. In the predicate logic expressions, a horizontal bar over an expression means to negate ("logical not") the result of that expression.
It is also possible to usegraphs (consisting of vertices and edges) to evaluate syllogisms.[15]
This table shows all 24 valid syllogisms, represented byVenn diagrams. Columns indicate similarity, and are grouped by combinations of premises. Borders correspond to conclusions. Those with an existential assumption are dashed.
People often make mistakes when reasoning syllogistically.[16]
For instance, from the premises some A are B, some B are C, people tend to come to a definitive conclusion that therefore some A are C.[17][18] However, this does not follow according to the rules of classical logic. For instance, while some cats (A) are black things (B), and some black things (B) are televisions (C), it does not follow from the parameters that some cats (A) are televisions (C). This is because in the structure of the syllogism invoked (i.e. III-1) the middle term is not distributed in either the major premise or in the minor premise, a pattern called the "fallacy of the undistributed middle". Because of this, it can be hard to follow formal logic, and a closer eye is needed in order to ensure that an argument is, in fact, valid.[19]
Determining the validity of a syllogism involves determining thedistribution of each term in each statement, meaning whether all members of that term are accounted for.
In simple syllogistic patterns, the fallacies of invalid patterns are:
Undistributed middle: Neither of the premises accounts for all members of the middle term, which consequently fails to link the major and minor term.
Illicit treatment of the major term: The conclusion implicates all members of the major term (P – meaning the proposition is negative); however, the major premise does not account for them all (i.e., P is either an affirmative predicate or a particular subject there).
Illicit treatment of the minor term: Same as above, but for the minor term (S – meaning the proposition is universal) and minor premise (where S is either a particular subject or an affirmative predicate).
Exclusive premises: Both premises are negative, meaning no link is established between the major and minor terms.
^Lundberg, Christian (2018).The Essential Guide to Rhetoric. Bedford/St.Martin's. p. 38.
^John Stuart Mill,A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence, and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, 3rd ed., vol. 1, chap. 2 (London: John W. Parker, 1851), 190.
^abFrede, Michael. 1975. "Stoic vs. Peripatetic Syllogistic."Archive for the History of Philosophy 56:99–124.
^Hurley, Patrick J. 2011.A Concise Introduction to Logic. Cengage Learning.ISBN9780840034175
^Zegarelli, Mark. 2010.Logic for Dummies. John Wiley & Sons.ISBN9781118053072.
^Lagerlund, Henrik (2 February 2004)."Medieval Theories of the Syllogism".The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta. Retrieved17 February 2014.
^According toCopi, p. 127: 'The letter names are presumed to come from the Latin words "AffIrmo" and "nEgO," which mean "I affirm" and "I deny," respectively; the first capitalized letter of each word is for universal, the second for particular'
— 1994. "The founding of logic: Modern interpretations of Aristotle's logic."Ancient Philosophy 14:9–24.
Corcoran, John, and Hassan Masoud. 2015. "Existential Import Today: New Metatheorems; Historical, Philosophical, and Pedagogical Misconceptions."History and Philosophy of Logic 36(1):39–61.
Englebretsen, George. 1987.The New Syllogistic. Bern:Peter Lang.
Cf. on validity of syllogisms: "A simple set of rules of validity was finally produced in the later Middle Ages, based on the concept of Distribution."
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
