A formal argument in logic that is formed by two statements and a conclusion which must be true if the two statements are true.
Last week Richard Dawkins got in trouble on twitter for trying to show how one type of syllogism works (https://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/response-to-a-bizarre-twitter-storm/). I don’t want to get into whether he was right for saying what he did - but it was interesting that a lot of people criticising him missed the whole point of his original tweet - to demonstrate the power of the syllogism! So what is this form of logical reasoning and why is it useful to philosophers?
At its most simple a syllogism is two statements that relate to one another and lead to a logical conclusion. A basic example is:
At its most simple a syllogism is two statements that relate to one another and lead to a logical conclusion. A basic example is:
1. All humans are mortal. |  |
The beauty of a good syllogism is that the conclusion must be indisputable if the statements are correct.
Most A-level students first come across syllogisms when they study the Ontological argument. Anselm, when he wrote Proslogion he lays out his argument in chapter 2 in a fairly verbose way:
Most A-level students first come across syllogisms when they study the Ontological argument. Anselm, when he wrote Proslogion he lays out his argument in chapter 2 in a fairly verbose way:
Therefore, 0 Lord, You who give understanding to faith, grant me to understand— to the degree You know to be advantageous— that You exist, as we believe, and that You are what we believe [You to be]. Indeed, we believe You to be something than which nothing greater can be thought. Or is there, then, no such nature [as You], for the Fool has said in his heart that God does not exist? (Psalms 13:1 & 52:1(14:1 & 53:1)). But surely when this very same Fool hears my words “something than which nothing greater can be thought,” he understands what he hears. And what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand [i.e., judge] it to exist. For that a thing is in the understanding is distinct from understanding that [this] thing exists. For example, when a painter envisions what he is about to paint: he indeed has in his understanding that which he has not yet made, but he does not yet understand that it exists. But after he has painted [it]: he has in his understanding that which he has made, and he understands that it exists. So even the Fool is convinced that something than which nothing greater can be thought is at least in his understanding; for when he hears of this [being], he understands [what he hears], and whatever is understood is in the understanding. But surely that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot be only in the understanding. For if it were only in the understanding, it could be thought to exist also in reality— something which is greater [than existing only in the understanding]. Therefore, if that than which a greater cannot be thought were only in the understanding, then that than which a greater cannot be thought would be that than which a greater can be thought! But surely this [conclusion] is impossible. Hence, without doubt, something than which a greater cannot be thought exists both in the understanding and in reality.” (https://courses.edx.org/c4x/MITx/24.00x/asset/AnselmProslogion2-5.pdf) |
Quite complicated!
However, it can neatly be summed up in this syllogism:
However, it can neatly be summed up in this syllogism:
1. God is that than which nothing greater can be thought. |
Now, having simplified the argument into a syllogism, we can then go on to test and discuss the logic and the reasoning more easily - this is why they are so useful!
RSS Feed
