Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T21:46:30.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant on Proving Aristotle’s Logic as Complete

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2016

Huaping Lu-Adler
Huaping Lu-Adler*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
*
Email: hl530@georgetown.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kant claims that Aristotle’s logic is complete. He defends this claim from the nature of a strictly scientific logic, and rejects as futile the attempts by some modern philosophers at extending it. I analyse what it means for Kant to regard Aristotle’s (formal) logic as complete, explain the historical and philosophical considerations that commit him to proving the completeness claim and sketch the proof based on materials from his logic corpus. The proof will turn out to be an integral part of Kant’s larger reform of formal logic in response to a foundational crisis facing it.

Keywords

formal logicKantAristotlestrict scienceprincipium
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 1 - 26
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnauld, Antoine, and Nicole, Pierre (1996) Logic or the Art of Thinking (Port-Royal Logic), trans. and ed. Jill V. Buroker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, Francis (2000) The New Organon, ed. Lisa Jardine and Michael Silverthorne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachelard, Suzanne (1990) A Study of Husserl’s Formal and Transcendental Logic. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Boswell, Terry (1988) ‘On the Textual Authenticity of Kant’s Logic’. History and Philosophy of Logic, 9, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buickerood, James G. (1985) ‘The Natural History of the Understanding’. History and Philosophy of Logic, 6, 157–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capozzi, Mirella, and Roncaglia, Gina (2009) ‘Logic and Philosophy of Logic from Humanism to Kant’. In Leila Haaparanta (ed.), The Development of Modern Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 78–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conant, James (1991) ‘The Search for Logically Alien Thought’. Philosophical Topics, 20(1), 115–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Elfriede (1994) Kants Logikvorlesungen als neuer Schlüssel zur Architektonik der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Descartes, Réne (1984) ‘Objections and Replies’. In John Cottingham et al. (trans. and ed.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 63–397.Google Scholar
Descartes, Réne (1985) ‘Principles of Philosophy, preface to French edition’. In John Cottingham et al. (trans. and ed.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes , vol. 1, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, Jakob Friedrich (1837) System der Logik. Heidelberg: C. F. Winter.Google Scholar
Haaparanta, Leila (2009) ‘The Relations between Logic and Philosophy, 1874–1931’. In Leila Haaparanta (ed.), The Development of Modern Logic (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 222–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, Gary (1997) ‘The Workings of the Intellect’. In Patricia Easton (ed.), Logic and the Workings of the Mind (Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing), pp. 21–45.Google Scholar
Heis, Jeremy (2012) ‘Attempts to Rethink Logic’. In Allen W. Wood and Songsuk Susan Hahn (eds), The Cambridge History of Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century (1790–1870) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 95–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husserl, Edmund (1969) Formal and Transcendental Logic, trans. Dorion Cairns. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husserl, Edmund (1970) Logical Investigations, trans. J. N. Findlay. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Jesseph, Douglas M. (2013) ‘Logic and Demonstrative Knowledge’. In Peter R. Anstey (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of British Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 373–390.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1998) Logik-Vorlesung: Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften, ed. Tillmann Pinder. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Käufer, Stephan (2010) ‘Post-Kantian Logical Radicalism’. In Dean Moyar (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Nineteenth Century Philosophy (New York: Routledge), pp. 809–836.Google Scholar
Kemp Smith, Norman (1918) A Commentary to Kant’s ‘Critique of Pure Reason’. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried W. (1956) ‘Letter to Gabriel Wagner on the Value of Logic, 1696’. In Philosophical Papers and Letters, trans. and ed. Leroy E. Loemker (Chicago: Chicago University Press), pp. 753–769.Google Scholar
Leibniz, Gottfried W. (1996) New Essays on Human Understanding, trans. and ed. Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John (1975) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Peter H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lu-Adler, Huaping (2015) ‘Constructing a Demonstration of Logical Rules, or How to Use Kant’s Logic Corpus’. In Robert R. Clewis (ed.), Reading Kant’s Lectures (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp. 136–158.Google Scholar
Maimon, Salomon (1794) Versuch einer neuen Logik oder Theorie des Denkens. Berlin: Ernst Felisch.Google Scholar
Malebranche, Nicolas (1997) The Search after Truth, trans. and ed. Thomas M. Lennon and Paul J. Olscamp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Manzano, Maria and Alonso, Enrique (2014) ‘Completeness: from Gödel to Henkin’. History and Philosophy of Logic, 35(1), 50–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosser, Kurt (2007) ‘Kant’s Logic(s) and the Logic of Aristotle’. Southwest Philosophy Review, 23(1), 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, H. J. (1936) Kant’s Metaphysic of Experience, vol. 1, London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Schuurman, Paul (2004) Ideas, Mental Faculties, and Method. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Robin (2014) ‘Aristotle’s Logic’. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/aristotle-logic>..>Google Scholar
Stelzner, Werner (2003) ‘Psychologism and Non-Classical Approaches in Traditional Logic’. In Dale Jacquette (ed.), Philosophy, Psychology, and Psychologism: Critical and Historical Readings on the Psychological Turn in Philosophy (Dordrecht and Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers), pp. 80–112.Google Scholar
Vilkko, Risto (2009) ‘The Logic Question during the First Half of the Nineteenth century’. In Leila Haaparanta (ed.), The Development of Modern Logic (Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press), pp. 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windelband, Wilhelm (1958) A History of Philosophy, trans. James H. Tufts. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Windelband, Wilhelm (1961) Theories in Logic, trans. B. Ethel Meyer. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Winkler, Kenneth (2003) ‘Lockean Logic’. In Peter R. Anstey (ed.), The Philosophy of John Locke: New Perspectives (London: Routledge), pp. 154–178.Google Scholar
Young, Michael J. (1992) ‘Translator’s Introduction’. In Michael J. Young (ed.), Lectures on Logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. xv–xxxxii.Google Scholar