Stoic Logic from the Theory of Mental Models
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24231/wisdom.v21i1.741Keywords:
Indemonstrables, Stoic logic, Syllogism, themata, theory of mental modelsAbstract
An essential point about Stoic philosophy is why certain arguments and rules are basic in their logic. That is the case of the indemonstrables and the themata. It has been proposed that assuming the theory of mental models, one can think that the five indemonstrables and two of the themata are easy to understand for the human mind. This can explain why those arguments and rules are essential components in Stoic logic. In addition, it is relevant because, given that the theory of mental models tries to capture the real way people reason, it can show that Stoic logic is closer to the manner individuals naturally make inferences than modern propositional calculus. The present paper is intended to move forward in this direction. It has two aims: one of them is to give an account from the theory of mental models of all of the themata. The other one is to argue that a simple schema that is correct in modern propositional calculus, and which, however, is not deemed as a true syllogism in Stoic logic, is difficult for people according to the theory of mental models. Those are further pieces of evidence that Stoic logic describes the way human beings think to a greater extent than modern logic.
Downloads
References
Bobzien, S. (1996). Stoic syllogistic. In C. C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy (pp. 133-192). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
BocheÒski, I. M. (1963). Ancient formal logic. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
Byrne, R. M. J., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2009). ìIfî and the problems of conditional reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13(7), 282-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.003
Byrne, R. M. J., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2020). If and or: Real and counterfactual possibilities in their truth and probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(4), 760-780. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000756
De Lay, P. (1984). Galeni De Placitis Hippocratis et Platonis (On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato by Galen, in Latin). Berlin, Germany: Akademie-Verlag.
Espino, O., Byrne, R. M. J., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2020). Possibilities and the parallel meanings of factual and counterfactual conditionals. Memory & Cognition, 48, 1263-1280. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01040-6
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2009). How many dual-process theories do we need? One, two or many? In J. St. B. T. Evans, & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 33-54). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0002
Gentzen, G. (1934). Untersuchungen ¸ber das logische Schlie?en I (Studies on logical reasoning I., in German). Mathematische Zeitschrift (Mathematical Journal, in German), 39(2), 176-210. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01201353
Gentzen, G. (1935). Untersuchungen ¸ber das logische Schlie?en II (Studies on logical reasoning II, in German). Mathematische Zeitschrift (Mathematical Journal, in German), 39(3), 405-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01201363
Heiberg, J. L. (1894). Simplicii in Aristotelis De Caelo Commentaria (Simplicius in Aristotleís Commentaries on Heaven, in Latin). Berlin, Germany: Reimer.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Ragni, M. (2019). Possibilities as the foundation of reasoning. Cognition, 193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.019
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2010). Against logical form. Psychologica Belgica, 50(3/4), 193-221. http://doi.org/10.5334/pb-50-3-4-193
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2012). Inference with mental models. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 134-145). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0009
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Khemlani, S., & Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Logic, probability, and human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(4), 201-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.02.006
Khemlani, S., Byrne, R. M. J., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2018). Facts and possibilities: A model-based theory of sentential reasoning. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1887-1924. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12634
Khemlani, S., Hinterecker, T., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2017). The provenance of modal inference. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. J. Davelaar (Eds.), Computational foundations of cognition (pp. 663-668). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Khemlani, S., Orenes, I., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2014). The negation of conjunctions, conditionals, and disjunctions. Acta Psychologica, 151, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.05.004
LÛpez-Astorga, M. (2015). Chrysippusí indemonstrables and mental logic. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 15(43), 1-15.
LÛpez-Astorga, M. (2016). The first rule of Stoic logic and its relationship with the indemonstrables. TÛpicos. Revista de FilosofÌa, 50, 9-23. https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v0i50.724
LÛpez-Astorga, M. (2017). Chrysippusí indemonstrables and the semantic mental models. Eidos, 26, 302-325. https://doi.org/10.14482/eidos.26.8437
LÛpez-Astorga, M. (2021). Execution in selection task depends on Chrysippusí criterion for the conditional. Schole, 15(2), 501-512. https://doi.org/10.25205/1995-4328-2021-15-2-501-512
Marcovich, M. (1999). Diogenes Laertius. Vitae Philosophorum (Diogenes Laertius. Philosophersí Lives, in Latin). Stuttgart & Leipzig, Germany: B. G. Teubner.
Mates, B. (1953). Stoic logic. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Mau, J. (2011). Sexti Empirici Opera (Works by Sextus Empiricus, in Latin). Berlin, Germany and New York, NY: De Gruyter.
Mignucci, M. (1993). The Stoic themata. In K. Doering, & T. Ebert (Eds.), Dialektiker und Stoiker: Zur Logik der Stoa und ihrer Vorl‰ufer (Dialectics and Stoics: On the logic of the Stoa and their predecessors, in German) (pp. 217-238). Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner.
OíToole, R. R., & Jennings, R. E. (2004). The Megarians and the Stoics. In D. M. Gabbay, & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the history of logic, Volume 1. Greek, Indian and Arabic logic (pp. 397-522). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1874-5857(04)80008-6
Oakhill, J., & Garnham, A. (Eds.) (1996). Mental models in cognitive science. Essays in honour of Phil Johnson-Laird. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Orenes, I., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2012). Logic, models, and paradoxical inferences. Mind & Language, 27(4), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2012.01448.x
Quelhas, A. C., Rasga, C., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2019). The analytic truth and falsity of disjunctions. Cognitive Science, 43(9). https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12739
Reinhardt, T. (2003). Marcus Tullius Cicero. Topica. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, P. (1970). Apulei Platonici Madaurensis Opera quae supersunt (Works by Apuleius of Madaur, in Latin). Stuttgart, Germany: B. G. Teubner.
Wallies, M. (1883). Alexander of Aphrodisias. Aristotelis Analyticorum Priorum (Prior Analytics by Aristotle, in Latin). Berlin, Germany: Reimer.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 scientific journal WISDOM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC). CC BY-NC allows users to copy and distribute the article, provided this is not done for commercial purposes. The users may adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material giving appropriate credit, and providing a link to the license. The full details of the license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
