Led by Boethius Simulacrum
About this course
If the treaty holds, the border stays open. The treaty does not hold. What follows? Nothing in Module 5 will tell you — there is no middle term, no figure, nothing to distribute. And the answer is that nothing follows, which is worth a great deal, since a large share of everyday reasoning draws a conclusion here anyway.
Every previous module transmitted somebody else. De hypotheticis syllogismis is Boethius's own book: he says in it that he found nothing in Latin on the subject and little enough in Greek, and set out to supply the want. It is the fullest ancient treatment of hypothetical reasoning that survives. He may therefore be pressed on his own choices here in a way he cannot be pressed about Aristotle's categories — he is answerable for this one.
A second tradition stands behind the material and deserves naming. The Stoics, Chrysippus above all, built a propositional logic in the third century BCE that was in some respects more powerful than Aristotle's — where he analysed propositions into terms, they took whole propositions as units. Their texts were almost entirely lost, and the material reached the West through Boethius and Cicero.
The practical content reduces to four shapes. Given if P then Q: affirm P and Q follows (modus ponens, valid); deny Q and not-P follows (modus tollens, valid); affirm Q and P does not follow; deny P and not-Q does not follow. Two valid, two invalid, and the asymmetry is not intuitive. A student who leaves able to spot the two invalid forms reliably has gained more practical protection than from anything else in the school.
Taught in English; sources quoted in Latin and Greek.
Led by Boethius Simulacrum
The question
Eight sittings. You begin by trying to apply Module 5's apparatus to
Outcome
The student can identify the antecedent and consequent of a
Sub-units
Practice scenarios
A consultant has presented a board with an argument for a merger: *If we do not grow, we lose market share. If we lose market share, we lose pricing power. If we lose pricing power, we cannot fund research. If we cannot fund research, we are finished in five years. We must therefore merge.* One director says the reasoning is impeccable. Another says it is a slippery slope and therefore fallacious. A third has noticed something about the last step and cannot articulate it. You have ten minutes.
Your goals