Aristotle and the philosophy of logic Among the first great philosophers to study the philosophy of logic was Aristotle. Aristotle used logic as a way to discover meaning, through his work he developed a logical system that, if followed, would lead an individual to the truth. Aristotle's work is not only significant because it is the first of its kind, but also for transforming the way reasoning was applied. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Aristotle's logic is structured such that an individual can deduce new knowledge using a syllogism. A syllogism is an argument based on two premises that reaches a logical conclusion. The premise of an argument is the statement on which the argument is based. The key to using a syllogism to reach a conclusion lies in deduction. The best way to illustrate this is with formal logic. Formal logic is one of the two types of logic invented by Aristotle. As the name suggests, formal logic is concerned with the correct form of a logical statement. This is where the deduction comes into play. A classic example of formal logic can be demonstrated as a mathematical concept as follows: if A is equal to B and B is equal to C, then A is also equal to C. You can reach the conclusion that A is equal to C using deduction. Another common example to show the logical progression of a form is the expression: if X then Y, X, then Y. Aristotle describes deduction as “discourse (logos) in which, certain things having been supposed, something different results from those supposed." necessarily because of their being so” (as qtd. in “Aristotle Logic 1”) As long as the argument follows form and you base your deduction on what you know to be true, then the conclusion you arrive at must be true by “necessity ”. It is important to note that in formal logic the fact or truth of a statement does not matter. Since formal logic deals only with the form of an argument, the emphasis is on the correctness of the form. If the form is used correctly the argument is said to be valid. While formal logic deals exclusively with the form of an argument, substantive logic introduces context. By context I mean the real-world premises applied to a module. Using the formal logic example above we could enter the context of the numbers, for example: 0 equals 1, 1 equals 2, then 0 equals 2. We know we are using the correct form of the argument that makes the argument valid, but the problem lies in the truth of the premises. You might say that 0 equals 1, but anyone familiar with mathematics knows that this is not true. When a statement uses the correct form but uses false premises, the statement is said to be incorrect. In contrast, when an argument has true premises and uses a valid form, it is said to be valid. The application and benefit of the logic are clear. Logic is a free tool available to anyone who thinks critically. If you understand logic, then you are able to evaluate logical statements. This is an important part of thinking critically and reaching the truth of a statement. Suppose you have a conversation with a colleague and you can clearly identify that their second premise disproves the first, with logic you will be able to immediately see that they are lying. Even more practical than everyday life is the application of logic to the sciences, the ability to discern facts from non-facts lies in the use of logic. A key part of the application of logic in science comes from Aristotle's first principles. Science yesit is clearly based on logic, but for it to work certain things must first be accepted as facts. Aristotle's first principles try to allow this to happen. Imagine where science would be if initially nothing could be accepted as fact, there would be no logic because no premise could be accepted as truth. Aristotle establishes the principles on which it is based three criteria, firstly they must be evident, secondly they are indemonstrable and finally they are fundamental (“Aristotle Logic 3”). Aristotle divides the first principles into four principles of logic, the principles of identity, the excluded middle, sufficient reasoning, and contradiction. These four principles serve as the foundation of all logic. The identity principle concerns how we recognize objects. We accept the identity of certain things based on how we observe them through our senses. A banana is a banana because it is yellow and shaped a certain way and smells and tastes a certain way. Objects that meet certain criteria are identified as that object, and the identity principle states that if any other object meets those criteria, then it too is that object. This is important because it is how we decide what something is. The second principle, the excluded middle principle, addresses half-truths. Simply put, there is no half-truth. A statement can only be true or false if it is less than true than false, and if it is more than false then it is true. Think about the term 'almost', if one were to say that they are almost anything then they do not meet the requirement of being that thing, therefore they are not, therefore the statement is false. The third principle of logic, the principle of sufficient reasoning, concerns cause. The principle states that nothing can exist on its own. That is to say, everything must have come from something. Finally, the fourth principle of logic, the principle of contradiction, deals with contradiction. The principle simply states that nothing can contradict itself. An object cannot have two conflicting identities. An apple cannot be an apple and a banana at the same time. This can easily be applied to an argument that is revealed to be false through contradictory statements. These principles are the foundation of logic because they provide a means of establishing premises. Hypothetically we establish the premise of "A", first we need A to be identifiable, if A is obscured by ambiguity then A cannot mean the same thing to everyone which in turn prevents us from establishing it, here the identity principle. After identifying A as A, we need to prove that A is or is not, A can hardly be A or the opposite, here we use the principle of the excluded middle. We then establish that A is a thing with the knowledge that A has a cause, here we use the principle of sufficient reasoning. Finally, we establish that A is and can only be A, using the principle of contradiction here. Using the four principles of logic we have successfully established a premise that we can use in our argument. Without the ability to establish a premise, the soundness of an argument would be unprovable, which would ultimately make logic unreliable. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay The great philosophical question comes from the application of logic. The question of whether or not logic is necessary to arrive at the truth. Some would say that logic is indeed necessary to determine truth, but I would rather ask what the nature of truth is. Aristotle establishes the truth based on the four principles of logic, but it is in the four principles that I find from.