https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/ Recent content in Prior Analytics on Superphysics Hugo en Sat, 04 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-01/ Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-01/ <!-- Based on the translation by A.J. Jenkinson, with minor emendations by Daniel Kolak. --> <h3 id="chapter-1">Chapter 1</h3> <p>What is demonstration and demonstrative science?</p> <p>What is a:</p> <ul> <li>premise</li> <li>term</li> <li>syllogism</li> <li>the nature of a perfect and of an imperfect syllogism</li> <li>the inclusion or noninclusion of one term in another as in a whole</li> <li>predicating one term of all, or none, of another.</li> </ul> <p>A premise is a sentence affirming or denying one thing of another.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-02/ Sat, 04 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-02/ <p>Every premise states that something that exists or must exist or might exist as the attribute of something else.</p> <p>Of these 3 kinds, some are affirmative, others negative, in respect of each of the 3 modes of attribution.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-03/ Sat, 04 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-03/ <p>The same manner of conversion [from positive to negative and vice versa] will hold good also in respect of necessary premises.</p> <p>The universal negative converts universally.</p> <ul> <li>Each of the affirmatives converts into a particular.</li> </ul> <p>If it is necessary that no B is A, it is necessary also that no A is B.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-04/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-04/ <p>How are syllogisms produced?*</p> <details id="note" class="pl-6 pr-4 pb-4 my-4 rounded-lg toc shadow border border-gray-300" open> <summary class="flex items-center font-bold py-2 cursor-pointer justify-between select-none"> <span class="tracking-wide">Superphysics Note!</span> <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" class="icon icon-tabler icon-tabler-chevron-down" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" stroke-width="2" stroke="currentColor" fill="none" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round"> <path stroke="none" d="M0 0h24v24H0z" fill="none"></path> <polyline points="6 9 12 15 18 9"></polyline> </svg> </summary> <div class=""> Syllogisms are merely the flow of the mind from one idea to another, as Aristotle explained in Chapter 1 </div> </details> <p>Syllogism should be discussed before demonstration because syllogism is the general.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-05/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-05/ <p>The second is whenever the same thing belongs to:</p> <ul> <li>all of one subject, and</li> <li>to none of another, or to all of each subject or to none of either.</li> </ul> <p>Its middle term is that which is predicated of both subjects, by extremes the terms of which this is said, by major extreme that which lies near the middle, by minor that which is further away from the middle.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-06/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-06/ <p>But if one term belongs to all, and another to none, of a third, or if both belong to all, or to none, of it, I call such a figure the third.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-07/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-07/ <h3 id="chapter-7">Chapter 7</h3> <p>In all the figures, whenever a proper syllogism does not result, if both the terms are affirmative or negative nothing necessary follows at all.</p> <p>But if one is affirmative, the other negative, and if the negative is stated universally, a syllogism always results relating the minor to the major term, e.g. if A belongs to all or some B, and B belongs to no C: for if the premises are converted it is necessary that C does not belong to some A.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-09/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-09/ <h3 id="chapter-9">Chapter 9</h3> <p>Sometimes, when one premise is necessary the conclusion is also necessary.</p> <p>But not when either premise is necessary, but only when the major is. For example if A is taken as necessarily belonging or not belonging to B, but B is taken as simply belonging to C.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-11/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-11/ <h3 id="chapter-11">Chapter 11</h3> <p>In the last figure when the terms are related universally to the middle, and both premises are affirmative.</p> <p>If one of the two is necessary, then the conclusion will be necessary.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-13/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-13/ <h3 id="chapter-13">Chapter 13</h3> <p>Perhaps enough has been said about the proof of necessity, how it comes about and how it differs from the proof of a simple statement. We proceed to discuss that which is possible, when and how and by what means it can be proved.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-14/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-14/ <p>Whenever A may possibly belong to all B, and B to all C, there will be a perfect syllogism to prove that A may possibly belong to all C.</p> <p>This is clear from the definition: for it was in this way that we explained &rsquo;to be possible for one term to belong to all of another'.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-15/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-15/ <p>If one premise is a simple proposition and the other one is a problematic one, then whenever the major premise indicates possibility then all the syllogisms will be perfect.</p> <ul> <li>They will establish possibility in the sense defined.</li> </ul> <p>But whenever the minor premise indicates possibility, then all the syllogisms will be imperfect.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-16/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-16/ <p>Whenever one premise is necessary, the other problematic, there will be a syllogism when the terms are related as before.</p> <p>A perfect syllogism when the minor premise is necessary.</p> <p>If the premises are affirmative the conclusion will be problematic, not assertoric, whether the premises are universal or not.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-17/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-17/ <h3 id="chapter-17">Chapter 17</h3> <p>In the second figure whenever both premises are problematic, no syllogism is possible, whether the premises are affirmative or negative, universal or particular. But when one premise is assertoric, the other problematic, if the affirmative is assertoric no syllogism is possible, but if the universal negative is assertoric a conclusion can always be drawn. Similarly when one premise is necessary, the other problematic. Here also we must understand the term &lsquo;possible&rsquo; in the conclusion, in the same sense as before.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-19/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-19/ <p>If one of the premises is necessary, the other problematic, then if the negative is necessary a syllogistic conclusion can be drawn, not merely a negative problematic but also a negative assertoric conclusion;</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-20/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-20/ <h3 id="chapter-20">Chapter 20</h3> <p>In the last figure, a syllogism is possible whether both or only one of the premises is problematic.</p> <p>When the premises are problematic the conclusion will be problematic; and also when one premise is problematic, the other assertoric. But when the other premise is necessary, if it is affirmative the conclusion will be neither necessary or assertoric; but if it is negative the syllogism will result in a negative assertoric proposition, as above.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-29/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-29/ <h3 id="chapter-29">Chapter 29</h3> <p>Syllogisms which lead to impossible conclusions are similar to ostensive syllogisms; they also are formed by means of the consequents and antecedents of the terms in question.</p> <p>In both cases the same inquiry is involved. For what is proved ostensively may also be concluded syllogistically per impossibile by means of the same terms; and what is proved per impossibile may also be proved ostensively, e.g. that A belongs to none of the Es. For suppose A to belong to some E: then since B belongs to all A and A to some of the Es, B will belong to some of the Es: but it was assumed that it belongs to none.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-30/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-30/ <p>The method is the same in all cases, in philosophy, in any art or study. We must look for the attributes and the subjects of both our terms.</p> <p>We must supply ourselves with as many of these as possible, and consider them by means of the three terms, refuting statements in one way, confirming them in another, in the pursuit of truth starting from premises in which the arrangement of the terms is in accordance with truth, while if we look for dialectical syllogisms we must start from probable premises.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-23/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-23/ <h2 id="chapter-23">Chapter 23</h2> <p>The syllogisms in these figures are made perfect by means of universal syllogisms in the first figure and are reduced to them. That every syllogism without qualification can be so treated, will be clear presently, when it has been proved that every syllogism is formed through one or other of these figures.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-31/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-31/ <h3 id="chapter-31">Chapter 31</h3> <p>Division into classes is a small part of the method we have described: for division is, so to speak, a weak syllogism; for what it ought to prove, it begs, and it always establishes something more general than the attribute in question.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-34/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-34/ <h3 id="chapter-34">Chapter 34</h3> <p>Men will frequently fall into fallacies through not setting out the terms of the premise well, e.g. suppose A to be health, B disease, C man. It is true to say that A cannot belong to any B (for health belongs to no disease) and again that B belongs to every C (for every man is capable of disease).</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-25/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-25/ <p>Every demonstration will proceed through three terms and no more, unless the same conclusion is established by different pairs of propositions; e.g. the conclusion E may be established through the propositions A and B, and through the propositions C and D, or through the propositions A and B, or A and C, or B and C.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-37/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-37/ <h3 id="chapter-37">Chapter 37</h3> <p>The expressions &rsquo;this belongs to that&rsquo; and &rsquo;this holds true of that&rsquo; must be understood in as many ways as there are different categories, and these categories must be taken either with or without qualification, and further as simple or compound: the same holds good of the corresponding negative expressions. We must consider these points and define them better.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-26/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-26/ <h2 id="chapter-26">Chapter 26</h2> <p>We understand:</p> <ul> <li>the subjects syllogisms are concerned with</li> <li>what sort of conclusion is established in each figure</li> <li>in how many moods this is done</li> <li>what sort of problem is difficult and easy to prove.</li> </ul> <p>For that which is concluded in many figures and through many moods is easier; that which is concluded in few figures and through few moods is more difficult to attempt.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-39/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-39/ <h3 id="chapter-39">Chapter 39</h3> <p>We should also exchange terms which have the same value, word for word, and phrase for phrase, and word and phrase, and always take a word in preference to a phrase: for thus the setting out of the terms will be easier. For example if it makes no difference whether we say that the supposable is not the genus of the opinable or that the opinable is not identical with a particular kind of supposable (for what is meant is the same in both statements), it is better to take as the terms the supposable and the opinable in preference to the phrase suggested.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-42/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-42/ <h2 id="chapter-42">Chapter 42</h2> <p>In the same syllogism not all conclusions are reached through one figure, but one through one figure, another through another.</p> <p>We must analyze arguments in accordance with this.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-46/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-46/ <p>In establishing or refuting, it makes some difference whether we suppose the expressions &rsquo;not to be this&rsquo; and &rsquo;to be not-this&rsquo; are identical or different in meaning, e.g. &rsquo;not to be white&rsquo; and &rsquo;to be not-white'.</p> https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-28/ Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000 https://www.superphysics.org/research/aristotle/prior/chapter-28/ <p>If men wish to establish something about some whole, they must look to the subjects of that which is being established (the subjects of which it happens to be asserted), and the attributes which follow that of which it is to be predicated.</p>