The Organon, Complete Edition: Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topics and Sophistical Refutations

by Aristotle

This collection gathers together the complete Organon by Aristotle in a single, convenient, high quality, and extremely low priced Kindle volume!

Introduction to Categories, by Porphyry: As Porphyry's most influential contribution to philosophy, the Introduction to Categories incorporated Aristotle's logic into Neoplatonism, in particular the doctrine of the categories of being interpreted in terms of entities (in later philosophy, "universal"). Boethius' Isagoge, a Latin translation of Porphyry's "Introduction", became a standard medieval textbook in European schools and universities, which set the stage for medieval philosophical-theological developments of logic and the problem of universals.

The Categories (Latin: Categoriae) introduces Aristotle's 10-fold classification of that which exists: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, situation, condition, action, and passion.

On Interpretation (Latin:De Interpretatione, Greek Perihermenias) introduces Aristotle's conception of proposition and judgment, and the various relations between affirmative, negative, universal, and particular propositions. It contains Aristotle's principal contribution to philosophy of language. It also discusses the Problem of future contingents.The square of opposition or square of Apuleius has its origin in the four marked sentences to be employed in syllogistic reasoning: Every man is white, the universal affirmative and its negation Not every man is white (or Some men are not white), the particular negative on the one hand, Some men are white, the particular affirmative and its negation No man is white, the universal negative on the other. Robert Blanché published with Vrin his Structures intellectuelles in 1966 and since then many scholars think that the logical square representing four values should be replaced by the logical hexagon which by representing six values is a more potent figure because it has the power to explain more things about logic and natural language. The study of the four propositions constituting the square is found in Chapter 7 and its appendix Chapter 8. Most important also is the immediately following Chapter 9 dealing with the problem of future contingents mentioned above. This chapter and the subsequent ones are at the origin of modal logic. There is perhaps a superiority of Blanché's hexagon in the field of modal logic too in so far as it explains clearly the nature and importance of the bilateral possible. The notion of bilateral possible is crucially important to understand both logic and natural language when applied to modal values.

The Prior Analytics (Latin: Analytica Priora) introduces his syllogistic method, argues for its correctness, and discusses inductive inference.

The Posterior Analytics (Latin: Analytica Posteriora) deals with demonstration, definition, and scientific knowledge.

The Topics (Latin: Topica) treats issues in constructing valid arguments, and inference that is probable, rather than certain. It is in this treatise that Aristotle mentions the Predicables, later discussed by Porphyry and the scholastic logicians.

The Sophistical Refutations (Latin: De Sophisticis Elenchis) gives a treatment of logical fallacies, and provides a key link to Aristotle's work on rhetoric.

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Logic, Nonfiction, Science, History, Ancient

474 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 41

About the author

Aristotle (Greek: Αριστοτέλης; 384–322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.

Reviews

[Erick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Getting through this book was a trial. I had set myself the task of doing it and I finally finished it.
The Organon comprises the Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topics and On Sophistical Refutations--basically, Aristotle's complete works dedicated to logic. I admit that as pedantic and as dry as Aristotle has a tendency to be, this collection of works impressed me to a degree. Aristotle had an incredibly meticulous mind and he set a philosophical precedent with works like these. That being said, Aristotle isn't the most engaging writer. When a writer doesn't engage me, it's incredibly hard for me to stay focused on their subject matter. With this book I had to keep bringing my attention back and even re-read whole paragraphs when my mind started to drift--which was often.
Just to give an example of Aristotle's pedantry: he spends probably a quarter of the book--if not more--on syllogisms like A is all/some/none of B, but all/some/none of C, where one particular relationship is considered and then another, e.g. A is all of B, some of C but none of D. This kind of syllogism is explored to the point of nauseous tedium. When he explores the difference between substance and quality and how categorical definitions function, you seem to be in more practical territory. I think the portion dedicated to logical fallacies is probably the more interesting of what is treated here. Most of that is found in volume 6: On Sophistical Refutations.
Honestly, I probably should give a longer review because of how long the book was, but I didn't find it engaging enough to warrant the effort. I am giving the book a good review because, like I said above, it was a pioneering philosophical endeavor and essential Aristotle; and as far as works go that help set reasonable logical parameters for dialectic and discourse, it is to be recommended as a basic and preliminary text. I also have to commend the editor Roger Bishop Jones for his effort in preparing this particular edition.

[Roy Lotz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aristotle continues to provoke conflicting reactions in me. I am always torn between realizing his tremendous originality and historical importance, and suffering from his extraordinary dullness. This book exemplifies both sides of the coin. Seeing a man single-handedly create the field of logic, ex nihilo, is tremendous; yet reading through these treatises could put a coffee-addict in a coma.

I am not insensitive to the appeals of philosophy. Far from it; I think reading philosophy is thrilling. Some of my most acute aesthetic experiences have been had contemplating some philosopher’s idea. Yet I have never had this reaction to Aristotle’s writings. Part of this is due to his formidable difficulty; another part, to the nature of the works (which, I must constantly remind myself, are lecture-notes).

Nevertheless, Aristotle had a prosaic mind; even when faced with the most abstract phenomena in the universe, his first reaction is to start parceling everything into neat categories, and to go on making lists and explanations of these categories. He does make logical arguments, but they are often brief, and almost as often unsatisfactory. Much of the time the student is faced with the dreary task of working his way through Aristotle’s system, simply because it is his system, and not because it is empirically or logically compelling.

(Every time I write a review for Aristotle, it comes out so disappointed. Let me try to be more positive.)

My favorite piece in this was the Posterior Analytics, which is a brilliant treatise on epistemology, logic, and metaphysics. Aristotle succinctly presents an entire theory of knowledge, and it’s incomparably more rigorous and detailed than anything Plato could have produced. I also particularly liked the Topics, as there we see Aristotle as a seasoned debater, in addition to a bumbling professor. Of course, there is much of strictly philosophic interest in this work as well; a particularly memorable problem is that of the future naval-battle.

For me, Aristotle is at his best when he is discussing the acquisition of knowledge. For Aristotle, whatever his faults, more perfectly embodied the love of knowledge than any other thinker in history. He wanted to know all; and, considering his historical limitations, he came damn near close. Us poor moderns have to content ourselves with either a mastery of one tiny slice of reality, or a dilettante acquaintance with all of it; Aristotle had the whole world at his fingertips.

[Giovanni Generoso · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aristotle created logic. Literally.

[Feliks · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another exhausting slog. Aristotle is my favorite philosopher and I rank this quite high for satisfaction; its a powerhouse of his thought; among his most robust. That being said, it is never chatty, chummy, or friendly. It isn't a comfortable book to curl up with. It is rather a book to ''confront' and 'undergo'. You subject yourself to it and (hopefully) come away the better for it.

[Santiago González · Rating 3 out of 5]

La obra (más bien el conjunto de ellas) más complicada a la que me he enfrentado nunca, ha habido mucha procrastinación pero finalmente lo he acabado y estoy muy orgulloso.

¿Qué decir? Odio el estilo de Aristóteles, sus infinitas clasificaciones y sus interminables distinciones pero no puedo evitar admirarlo por el trabajo y el talento que supone fundar la lógica desde cero, una fundamentación sólida del conocimiento científico, la forma de expresarlo y cuáles no, además de todas las ramificaciones posibles que se siguen de estos asuntos. Sin duda un trabajo sólo al alcance de un auténtico genio, de los más grandes que ha visto la humanidad.

Lectura muy recomendada, me atrevería a decir que es fundamental, y eso que siempre estaba repleto de prejuicios y pensamientos que me decían que no lo era y que la puedes saltar sin gran complicación.

[Sahand · Rating 1 out of 5]

One of the most valuable books a man can read. 1/5.

[Tonatiuh Dávila · Rating 5 out of 5]

Libro clave para la comprensión no ya de la dialéctica aristotélica, sino de toda su epistemología. La dialéctica de Aristóteles es simplemente incomparable, como ejercicio traté de hacer contrademostraciones cada que discrepaba con él o creía encontrar huecos en sus demostraciones, siempre para darme cuenta cómo después de unos cuántos párrafos, Aristóteles no dejaba espacio para el error.

Libro bastante pesado, necesita tiempo y dedicación.

[Domhnall · Rating 5 out of 5]

”Of this inquiry it is not the case that part of the work had been thoroughly done before, while part had not. For nothing existed at all…. On the subject of Rhetoric there exists much that has been said long ago, whereas on the subject of reasoning we had nothing else of an earlier date to speak of at all, but were kept at work for a long time in experimental researches.” (On Sophistical Refutations 34: 184]

Aristotle’s Logic is a compilation of six documents describing his exploration of reasoning. He promotes the syllogism as a tool capable of great flexibility, sets out detailed advice on the correct way to proceed and pays no less attention to the problems leading to false reasoning, fallacies and plain deception. However, he does not overestimate the capacity of logical reasoning to displace practical reality testing: he says on a number of occasions that the best line of reasoning does not establish the truth until it is shown to correspond to the facts. His discussion of the scientific method may seem less convincing because of the restricted examples on which he could draw in the third century BC but it will quickly become apparent that the types of argument he advocates and the pitfalls against which he warns remain persuasive and relevant today.

The writing is extremely abstract and when he does give practical examples they tend to be dismally colourless. A famous illustration referring to a sea battle is very brief, and I suggest it owes its fame to being the solitary exception where he offers something remotely amusing. His systematic exploration of each matter can also become excessive and tedious. Two solutions are available. One is to take notes, bringing out the headings of his material and discarding the avoidable detail. The other is to speed read and skip over sections, albeit at the risk of missing something important. However, I don’t imagine anyone expects to memorize Aristotle at one reading and for most of us it is surely sufficient to have caught the flavour of his style and arguments. Both are in reality well worth the effort.

“Categories” is an exploration of the way we use words to name objects and investigates their relationships. …“a real man and a figure in a picture can both lay claim to the name “animal”: yet these are equivocally so named, for , though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each.” [Cat ch 1]

“The truth or falsity of a statement depends on facts, and not on any power on the part of the statement itself” [Cat ch 5]

“On Interpretation” considers the use of spoken language to form propositions and to assess their truth or falsity.

“The Prior Analytics” and “the Posterior Analytics” explore exhaustively the use of syllogism to establish scientific knowledge, including the recognition of defective reasoning.
”A premiss then is a sentence affirming or denying one thing of another … A syllogism is a discourse in which, certain things being stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so.” [PriorA Bk1 Ch1]

“The proper object of unqualified scientific knowledge is something which cannot be other than it is.” [PostA Bk I Ch 2]

“Every syllogism is effected by means of three terms. One kind of syllogism serves to prove that A inheres in C by showing that A inheres in B and B in C; the other is negative and one of its premisses asserts one term of another, while the other denies one term of another. It is clear, then, that these are the fundamentals and so called hypotheses of syllogism. Assume them as they have been stated and proof is bound to follow… If our reasoning aims at gaining credence, and so is merely dialectical, it is obvious that we have only to see that our inference is based on premisses as credible as possible: so that if a middle term between A and B is credible though not real, one can reason through it and complete a dialectical syllogism. If, however, one is aiming at truth, one must be guided by the real connexions of subjects and attributes.” [PostA Bk I Ch 19]

“The kinds of question we ask are as many as the kinds of things which we know. They are in fact four: - (1) whether the connexion of an attribute with a thing is a fact, (2) what is the reason of the connexion, (3) whether a thing exists, (4) what is the nature of the thing. … Now when we ask whether a connexion is a fact, or whether a thing without qualification is, we are really asking whether the connection or thing has a ‘middle’; and when we have ascertained either that the connexion is a fact or that the thing is… and are proceeding to ask the reason or the connexion or the nature of the thing, then we are asking what the ‘middle’ is… It is clear then that all questions are a search for a ‘middle’.” [PostA Bk II ch 1, 2, 3]

“The degree of our knowledge of a thing’s essential nature is determined by the sense in which we are aware that it exists… Let A be eclipse, C the moon, B the earth’s acting as a screen. Now to ask whether the moon is eclipsed or not is to ask whether B has occurred. But that is precisely the same as asking whether A has a defining condition; and if this condition actually exists, we assert that A also actually exists.” [PostA Book II, Ch 8]

“Topics” could be described as a training manual for the construction of arguments and includes a lot of practical suggestions.

”Now reasoning is an argument in which certain things being laid down, something other than these necessarily comes about through them. It is a ‘demonstration’ when the premisses from which the reasoning starts are true and primary… reasoning, on the other hand, is ‘dialectical’ if it reasons from opinions that aere generally accepted. Things are ‘true’ and ’primary’ which are believed on the strength of nothing else but of themselves,: for in regard to the first principles of science it is improper to to ask any further for the why and wherefore of them… On the other hand, those opinions are ‘generally accepted’ which are accepted by every one or by the majority or by the philosophers…” [Topics Bk I Ch 1]

“Of propositions and problems there are – to comprehend the matter in outline – three divisions: for some are ethical propositions, some are on natural philosophy while some are logical.” [Topics Book I 14]

“… the first thing to observe is that few if any who engage in discussion arrive at a definition by reasoning: they always assume something of the kind as their starting point.” [Topics Book VII 2]

Finally, “On Sophistical Refutations” concerns “what appear to be refutations but are really fallacies instead.” [SR 1}

”First we must grasp the number of aims entertained by those who argue as competitors and rivals to the death. There are five in number, refutation, fallacy, paradox, solecism amd fifthly to reduce the opponent in the discussion to babbling – i.e. to constrain him to repeat himself a number of times: or it is to produce the appearance of each of these things without the reality. For they choose if possible plainly to refute the other party, or as the second best to show that he is committing some fallacy, or as a third best to lead him into paradox, or fourthly to reduce him to solecism, i.e. to make the answerer, in consequence of the argument, to use an ungrammatical expression; or as a last resort, to make him repeat himself.” [SR 3]

“There are two kinds of refutation: for some depend on the language used, while some are independent of language. Those ways of producing the false argument which depend on language are six in number: they are ambiguity, amphiboly, combination, division of words, accent, form of expression… these are the number of ways in which we might fail to mean the same thing by the same names or expressions. … Of fallacies, on the other hand, that are independent of language there are seven kinds: (1) that which depends upon Accident; (2) the use of an expression absolutely or not absolutely but with some qualification…. (3) that which depends upon ignorance of what ‘refutation’ is; (4) that which depends upon the consequent; (5) that which depends upon assuming the original conclusion; (6) stating as cause what is not the cause; (7) the making of more than one question into one.” [SR 4]

“By a sophistical refutation and syllogism I mean not only a syllogism or refutation which appears to be valid but is not, but also one which, though it is valid, only appears to be appropriate to the thing in question. … Now the art of examining is a branch of dialectic: and this may prove a false conclusion because of the ignorance of the answerer. Sophistical refutations, on the other hand, even though they prove the contradictory of his thesis, do not make clear whether he is ignorant: for sophists entangle the scientist as well with these arguments.” [SR 8: 169b]

[Lloyd Earickson · Rating 5 out of 5]

No quote from a fantasy book might be invoked more frequently than the Professor’s from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: “why don’t they teach logic at these schools?”  I deploy it often myself, and after my reflections about critical thinking, and how to teach it, I set out to instruct myself on logic.  Naturally, I turned to the ancient Greeks, and found a collection of Aristotle’s writings called Organon.  The collection itself is an artifact of the Middle Ages, when scholars were beginning to rediscover the Ancients, but it is composed of several of Aristotle’s books on logic: Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topics, Sophistical Elenchi, and Introduction of Porphyry.

Part of why I chose to start my study of logic with Aristotle is because of the foundation he lays in Art of Rhetoric, which we reviewed previously, and which includes an excellent discussion of the application of logic to oral arguments and debates.  Interestingly, he separates rhetoric from dialectic and other, more rigorous applications of logic, since rhetoric is about convincing people, not about establishing truth, a distinction which modern politicians wholly embrace.  Regardless, if you have also already ready Art of Rhetoric, Categories will provide you will little new information, as it is essentially a book of definitions.  Unlike when certain philosophers go out of their way to redefine common concepts, however, when Aristotle does it, it serves a useful purpose and does not so much redefine as ensure that we all understand the full definition, and not the colloquial employment, of the terms involved in logic.  On Interpretation continues to define important logical concepts.

With Prior Analytics, we begin our true study of logic itself.  If you think that logic is some loose method of thinking rationally about a thing and coming to a conclusion based on facts, and therefore that there isn’t much to be written about it, then you clearly were not taught logic in school.  Aristotle spends two books of Prior Analytics talking about the core logical form – the syllogism – and all of its permutations and varieties, and how it can best be implemented.  The most basic syllogism is “if A is true, and B is true, then C must also be true,” but they can be far more complex and nuanced than that example suggests, and by the time Aristotle finishes exploring them, I think he’s managed to involve the entire alphabet.

The syllogism, in a sense, is the core of rationalist knowledge, the means by which a rationalist can argue and understand the universe.  Posterior Analytics extends that rationalist tool into the empirical realm, discussing how to invoke demonstration, discovery, and definition in syllogisms to establish a conclusion.  Again split into two books, Posterior Analytics, as the name suggests, is about proving an argument based on knowledge that you already possess, not about deriving a conclusion by rational means, as he covers in Prior Analytics.  There is also an excellent discussion of cause and effect.

Topics, then, begins to discuss the actual application of the concepts explicated in the previous books.  You would never know that Aristotle did not link these works together in the way Organon has them, because the books build upon each other and flow from one to the other as if they were designed to be taught in this fashion.  If I ever have to teach a class on logic, I will use Organon as my textbook and my curriculum.  Split into eight books, Topics covers definitions, types, property, comparisons, order, argument, dialectic, defense, solution, evidence, contraries…it is truly an eclectic collection to list out in this fashion, but it is all built around improving the construction of a logical argument, and it is most effective in doing so – just don’t expect to get anything out of it if you try to read through this quickly.

Nothing about Organon should be read quickly, not if you are genuinely using it as a way to improve your own logic.  Like a textbook, it will only be useful if you practice what it is attempting to teach you.  Aristotle doesn’t see logic just as a method of thinking; he sees it as a form of argument.  That is made abundantly clear in Sophistical Elenchi, which uses logic to fight logic, shows common mistakes in applied logic, and explains how to go about using the logical tools he’s provided in previous books to refute someone’s argument, either because it is not logical, or because its logic is improperly applied and therefore leads to an erroneous conclusion.

Some versions of Organon include a final book, The Introduction of Porphyry, which was written by the philosopher Porphyry sometime between 234 and 305 CE.  There is debate in the community about whether or not the introduction was intended especially as an introduction for Aristotle’s Categories, or if it was meant as Porphyry’s own introduction to logic.  Regardless, in the context of Organon I found it rather redundant with Aristotle’s works, as it largely retreads similar ground to the earlier books in Organon.

The implementation of logic is a lifelong effort, and no one book will miraculously make you a critical thinker.  Critical thought, and logic as a type of critical thinking, require dedicated, persistent work to enact in your everyday thinking patterns.  If there is one book that will help you on that journey, though, it is Organon, and I highly recommend that you work your way through a copy.  Really, after reading it, it’s clear that is the only logical decision.

[Hunter Kinder]

Categories and On Interpretation were a very solid foundation for the mundanity of Prior Analytics; which almost made Posterior Analytics a treat as it's much less stop and go and less filled with particularities of syllogisms and more about the general rules of predicate logic and conclusions that can be drawn from Prior Analytics.

Much of The Organon's content seems self evident as much of our society is structured on Aristotelian logic. Yet, the text must have been quite revolutionary in the sciences of Ancient Greece.

Aristotle may have known more than any man in history, and his extremely capable Broca's area may help explain why. To allow for the evolution of language, entropic forces must be allowed to select for valuable mutations. To establish a system of logic with in a language like Greek sets the stage for what harnesses these forces and allows for an evolution of not only language, but cognition itself.

[Gonzalo Anero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dios mío. Empiezas con las Categorías y te sientes bien porque casi que entiendes todo. Llegan los Tópicos y las Refutaciones sofísticas y te dan dos puñetazos en el estómago. Luego viene Sobre la interpretación con un beso en la frente y cinco duros por aguantar. Los Analíticos primeros han conseguido que contemple con cariño y añoranza mi última limpieza de encías, y los Analíticos segundos me han reconciliado con mi propia capacidad de comprensión lectora y me han hecho valorar el privilegio de pasar de las tres páginas al día. Le doy cinco estrellas porque la cubierta está guapa y no me pesaba mucho en la mochila.

[path · Rating 3 out of 5]

My original plan with this collection of books (i.e., Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topics, and Sophistical Refutations), collectively known as the Organon, was to read the Topics in preparation for reading On Rhetoric. However, jumping in at Topics proved very difficult because of its reliance on the previous books.

Categories deals with classifying the world as it is experienced. It is rooted in language (i.e., how we talk about or can talk about the world) and it is essentially taxonomic. Things are:
- “Predicated of” = something that is true of a particular entity but is not part of that entity (e.g., tree is predicated of the tree in my yard)
- “Not predicated of” = something that is specific and unique, a specific instances (e.g., the tree in my yard)
- “Present in” = a quality that is “accidental” or in a thing but it not essential, it could be removed and it would still be that thing (e.g., “leafed” is present in the tree in my yard, but is accidental to its designation as the tree in my yard)
- “Not present in” = a quality that is “not accidental” meaning that it must be there for the thing to be what it is (e.g., “tree-ness” has to be in the tree in my yard for it to be a tree)

The terminology is very confusing and I was starting to regret not having started with Metaphysics. However, once these terms are clear, they form the basis of all that is to follow.

Prior Analytics is all about understanding demonstration (creation of knowledge) through the use of propositions (assertions of truth or falsity) that are made up of premises and terms (p.45). Here we are introduced to the idea of a “syllogism," which is "a sentence in which certain things being laid down, something else different from the premises necessarily results, in consequence of their existence” (p.45). Surely you have heard the one about all men being mortal, Socrates being a man, making Socrates mortal. This is the book where that comes from. There is a whole taxonomy of syllogistic forms from the basis to the advanced. We can thank some medieval logicians for developing a systems of mnemonic devices for remembering the forms that is (to me) of no help whatsoever. Regardless, the careful and systematic examination of syllogistic forms is enlightening in that it shows exactly how these logical form to interlock and create solid logical foundations, even if just for simple/categorical propositions.

Posterior Analytics describes syllogism resulting in demonstration (i.e., understanding) that follow from certain premises. This is different from rhetoric, which builds from uncertain claims and argues through examples (p.133)

Syllogisms build on prior knowledge (p.133) and although our senses only allow us to develop information singularly, one instance at a time, we seek to know what is universal, the “first principles” (p.134) upon which all knowledge is based and that serves as the common link between individual instances.

Syllogisms allow first principles to result, logically and necessarily, in the individual instances. And in this way, you can recognize some of the problems and arguments about inductive scientific reasoning that were present in discussions of scientific method.

This book is famously concerned with arguments “that a thing is, why it is, if it is, what it is” (p.171).

Topics are about arguments from the common places (topoi). The focus of the treatise is on how to work on enthymemes (arguments from uncertain or probably propositions) (p.192). Whereas in previous books we had first principles from which to orient other propositions, the topics concern arguments from examples and from what is probable but not certain. It is the basis of rhetoric -- rhetoric of all fields, which works toward understanding or discovering their own topoi that replace the axiomatic knowledge derivable from first principles.

Unlike demonstrative claims, those argued through enthymeme do not obtain truth value from their own rights but must be achieved through persuasion (p.192). They proceed inductively, through examples, which is better for persuasion (p.200)

Four common places (p.200):
- Identifying propositions about a thing
- Defining terms
- Identifying how things differ
- Identifying how things are similar

The books in Topics proceed through various ways of constructing and interrogating propositions, terms, similarities and differences, and conclusions. The provide strategies for arguing as convincingly as possible (achievable with clear and precise language, above all).

Finally, and briefly, the Sophistical Refutations is a very critical look at argumentative strategies taken up by sophists. Aristotle calls out some by name and finds fault with their arguments in terms of the system that he has belabored over the course of the book so far. You will recognize in this discussion the foundation of many of the logical fallacies that are still learned today.

I can't honestly say that I enjoyed the book. It was, in a word, tedious. And it is only out of sheer stubbornness that I continued plodding through at times. Nevertheless, I can offer a tentative recommendation on the following conditions:
- you want to understand the basics of categorical logic
- you have the time and patience to map out the various forms, steps, and missteps of logical argumentation
- you don't mind puzzling through the scant examples given and the supplying some of your own to solidify your understanding of the terms
- you don't mind a fair bit of repetition.

It's a lot of conditions but the payoff is pretty big. To readers who are familiar with scientific method, elementary logic, syllogisms, logical fallacies, enthymemes, and arguments from uncertainty and probability, you will find that the books in this collection are the very origins of those ideas and practices. If you ever had any doubt that Aristotle was a big influence on modern thought, you won't after this collection.

[Athens · Rating 5 out of 5]

--

The book I am actually reading is Porphyry's Introduction, with preface by Thomas Taylor, which includes his translation of Proclus' preface.

This will require re-reading.

Unless you as a reader are a marvel of the civilized world in your very person, this material is not something you can simply read like a story.

It absolutely requires that if you are going to send any time AT ALL, you must, simply must, go over the text several times and from several directions in order to make any useful sense of it.

This means re-reading the sentence, the paragraph, the section, and even the whole book; and likely doing all that re-reading multiple times.

It is worth every second so spent.

Either be willing to study this and get a benefit, or simply spend no time at all on it, zero, none.

:)

Paul Zeman

[Jeff · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm always reticent to even rate classics as my opinion really doesn't really matter. But I'm keeping a record of what I read on Goodreads so I suppose it's worthwhile to at least let my friends know what's worth their time and what is not. Aristotle is brilliant. And he basically invented the art of logic. If you have an interest in either of those then you might really enjoy the short writings that make up this work. But if you're not super interested in the historical development of logic then you will want to put your head through a wall.

If you're looking for something more generally interesting by Aristotle try out Politics or Ethics...

[Michał Wojas · Rating 2 out of 5]

Massive influence and a shock to the system coming from Plato and earlier philosophers. This is a massive shift in the process of thought. Aristotle is on another level.

However, as far as reading goes you're better off buying a discrete mathematics textbook. You'll get the same information but it will be much easier to digest.

Don't regret reading but am warning you this is a very difficult read especially if the discussed topics are entirely new to you.

[Ahmed Farrag · Rating 3 out of 5]

I know that this is the most important book in the history of Logic, since it's the first systematic work on the subject, but because I have already been acquainted with much of what was in it, the experience was not as enjoyable, or as informative, as I would have wanted it to be.

[Myles · Rating 3 out of 5]

How to sort and organize shit, how language works. It's a 500 page rule book that hasn't aged well. Next time, try a Viennese phonebook from the '30s.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

Included within this larger work are several major treatises. Every critical thinker would do well to study “Categories,” “On Interpretation” and the first and last parts of “Topics.” Posterior Analytics is interesting while Prior Analytics is highly technical.

Categories is the intro text to Aristotle’s Metaphysics, or so said some essay from Plato.Stanford.Edu said. Good enough for me. It is short and clear. It also gives us the grammar for later Christian theology.

Some things are predicable of a subject but never in a subject. By “being present in a subject” Aristotle means “incapable of existence apart from a subject” (2, 1a).

Substance is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject.
Primary: The individual man or horse. (this-ness)
Secondary: the species man; the genus animal.

Key point: everything except primary substances is either predicable of a primary substance or present in a primary substance. The proposition “the man is an animal” is necessarily true, but not the reverse. Further, the species is to the genus as the subject is to predicate.

A primary substance has no contrary, for what can be the contrary to an individual man? Yet, while remaining numerically one it can admit contrary qualities.

Chapter 6: What is Quantity?

It is either discrete or continuous. Time, for example, is a continuous quantity.

Chapter 10: Opposites

Things are opposed in four ways:
Correlatives
Contraries
Privatives to positives
Affirmatives to negatives

Chapter 12: Being “prior’

There are four senses in which a thing can be “prior:”
Time.
Numerical sequence
Order in a list
Natural priority




On Interpretation

Every proposition must contain a subject and a verb.

Contradictories: the opposite denial of an affirmation. The affirmation is of a universal character. The denial is not. One must be true and the other must be false.

Universal: that which is of such a nature that can be predicated of many subjects

Contrary: the positive/negative proposition of a universal character.

Prior Analytics

Goal: state the moods and nature of the syllogism made from possible premises.

A perfect syllogism: when the last term is contained in the middle premise as a whole, and the middle is either contained in, or excluded from, the first as in or from a whole, the extrames must be related (24a 34).

Major term: the term in which the middle is contained.

All premises in the mode of possibility are convertible to each other (32a 24). “It is not possible” = “it is impossible” = “it is necessary not to belong.”

Posterior Analytics

This is a more readable treatise than the previous one. His thesis is that not all knowledge is demonstrative. Our knowledge of immediate (i.e., not mediate) premises is independent of demonstration (72b). Logical demonstration is an inference from necessary premises.

From there Aristotle moves to some comments on essences.

Essential attribute: it belongs to its subject as an essential element (like a line in a triangle). They “inhere” in the subject. This gets tricky. When Aristotle says “inherence,” does he mean they exist “within” the subject?

With this knowledge Aristotle explores how a middle term in a syllogism, one that is necessary, leads to universal knowledge (75b).

Every syllogism is affected by means of three terms. For example, A inheres in C by means of A’s inhering in B and B’s inhering in C.

More on substance-language. Predicates which signify substance signify that the subject is identical with the predicate or a species of the predicate. For example, if A is a quality of B, then B cannot be a quality of A. You can’t have a quality of a quality.

The Heart of the Matter is the Middle Term

“Quick wit is the faculty of hitting upon the middle term instantaneously” (89b). The middle term in a syllogism can sometimes be seen as the “Cause.”

Sophistical Refutations

This is a guidebook on how to refute Hellenic sophists. Very technical.

[Felipe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Categories: Concerns the analysis of what is predicated of and present in subjects, alongside the concept of substance and their dependent accidents. The distinctions, despite somewhat confusing, make perfect sense and represent what I would expect from an aristotelian logical treatise. However, I found the page distribution curious. He spends tens of pages treating a topic, but barely a couple of paragraphs investigating another (types of movement, for example)

On interpretation: Analyses the structure of simple declarative statements, dealing with what are nouns, verbs, and how they combine to form a sentence. Additionally, there is the distinction of positive, negative, contrary, universal, and particular propositions. His use of repeated language structures, while acting with the goal of logically exhausting possibilities, made the text confusing and repetitive. Despite that, most of its contents were rather obvious.

Anterior Analytics: Deals with the structure, figures, moods, and details involving syllogisms. While the importance of this deductive method is undeniable, the author's thoroughness far exceeded my interest. Additionally, the lack of concrete examples turned the text into a confusing and turgid experience, in which syllogism's minutia defeated me.

Posterior Analytics: Deals with demonstration, definitions, and scientific knowledge. Demonstrations are defined as syllogisms that produce scientific knowledge, while definitions reveal the essential nature of things. Despite being the most interesting and content-full of the treatises so far, Aristotle's prose leaves something to be desired. The impact of the theory is still there, yet it is reduced due to the author's confusing writing style.

Topics: Focuses in developing methods of classification and division, similarly to other sections of the work, but this time with the goal of constructing arguments. The practical aspect of the text was partially lost, in which the author's writing style was once again a deterrent.

On sophistical refutations: A very short work delimiting the 4 types of arguments and the character of sophistical rhetoric. Additionally, there is a retrospective on the Organon as a whole, and the emphasis on the study of reasoning as an unexplored field of inquiry at the time.


The Organon is a collection of Aristotle's works on logic, featuring the Categories, On interpretation, the Anterior and Posterior Analytics, the Topics and On sophistical refutations, of which the individual reviews are written above. As a whole, Aristotle manages, by himself, to develop the field of logic and structured reasoning, such that it was left mainly unchanged for one thousand years. While the relevance of the work is apparent, it isn't without flaws.

The main contrast developed throughout the work is of philosophical depth vs stylistic obscurity. The pages are loaded with enriching and thought provoking philosophy that refuses to be grasped in multiple occasions due to the author's writing style. His often turgid and unnaccessible prose is a deterrent to the depth of ideas presented, and to a modern reader, feels convoluted. Nevertheless, the core still remains distinctive: the epistemology of the Posterior Analytics and the development of the syllogistic structure strike a chord of recognition from my philosophy classes, which first drew me into the work.

[Andrea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Impressionante come Aristotele sia riuscito a costruire dei testi così minuziosi e completi per il tempo in cui sono stati scritti, sviscerando ogni singolo aspetto del linguaggio, dell'epistemologia e della retorica. L'Organon non è una lettura di piacere, è, bensì, rivolta a coloro che sono mossi dalla stessa sete di conoscenza che aveva Aristotele, pronti a discutere ogni singolo aspetto di un dato argomento, disposti a raggiungere la verità nel modo più efficace e perfetto possibile.
Sei sono gli scritti contenuti nel testo, e ciascuno di essi ha dato il proprio impulso allo sviluppo dei più disparati settori filosofici: impossibile prescindere la loro importanza in qualunque indagine specialistica o di alto livello, Aristotele è stato ed è tuttora un punto di riferimento fondamentale per coloro che vogliono imparare o costruire ragionamenti di alto livello.
Tuttavia, siate pronti, l'impostazione dei lavori è estremamente rigorosa e tanti concetti sono affrontati e discussi fino a risultare pedanti, il tedio è dietro l'angolo se proprio non siete interessati alle tematiche in questione (la logica, in sé, è una branca piuttosto arida che compete principalmente alle menti metodiche e allontana coloro che amano pensare liberamente).

Nelle Categorie Aristotele si ricollega alla sua metafisica. In tale testo, tutto ciò che esiste in quanto manifestazione dell'Essere è ricondotto alle dieci categorie. Si tratta del più breve tra i sei, ma non per questo il meno interessante.

Nel De Interpretatione il filosofo discute il linguaggio e la sua costruzione, soffermandosi in particolare sui concetti di "proposizione" e "giudizio". Il più interessante per coloro che si intendono di filosofia del linguaggio e di ermeneutica, queste branche della filosofia debbono molto a questo testo.

Negli Analitici primi Aristotele tratta del sillogismo, il metodo da lui elaborato che dovrebbe condurre a conoscenza certa. Nonostante sia il più importante tra i testi assieme al suo successore, gli Analitici secondi, ove invece il filosofo si occupa di epistemologia, è probabilmente il più noioso per coloro che sono avversi alla materia, giacché viene preso in esame ogni singolo caso con molto rigore ed astrazione. Più leggero il secondo testo, in cui Aristotele applica il sillogismo per elaborare delle tecniche dimostrative che conducano a conoscenza scientifica certa, e questo è sicuramente il più grande debito che la matematica ha nei confronti del filosofo.

Nei Topici Aristotele affronta la costruzione di forme di ragionamento valido, e anche in questo caso snocciola il più possibile ogni situazione, e per tale motivo è un testo che catturerà principalmente l'interesse dei logici più che degli appassionati.

Infine, nelle Confutazioni sofistiche Aristotele offre delle interessanti teorie sull'euristica e sulla retorica, occupandosi soprattutto di forme di ragionamento che paiono valide ma che, e in questo il filosofo è in sottesa polemica coi Sofisti, sono finalizzate esclusivamente a convincere l'avversario delle personali opinioni.

In conclusione, l'opera è importantissima ma ha bisogno di un pubblico veramente specializzato per essere apprezzata nella sua interezza. Nonostante questo, ognuno saprà trovare il proprio testo di riferimento e saprà goderne in giusta misura.

[geoffrey Paugher-Storree · Rating 3 out of 5]

A chore to read, but rewarding to understand. Honestly, there are many parts where it is better to read/watch summaries using modern language and terminology. The exhausting list of syllogisms in prior analytics is a representation of the whole style, comprehensive, to the point of misery. What could be understood with symbols and equations is instead beaten into your skull with written out explanations and hundreds of examples and also every single exemption from a rule or possible protest from a strawman interlocuter.

Organon is a triumph of human thought, crawling out of the bog of sophistry. You can read it as an angry Aristotle reading through the Presocratics and Plato and shaking his head in disbelief at the sloppy word games and laughable conclusions. Instead of engaging them in debate, he systematically destroys them by creating a new standard for reasoning with clearly defined terms. (he doesn't directly call many of them out in this work, but later works like Physics which draws upon this system of thinking). Syllogisms aren't the only interesting thing though, Posterior analytics walks through reasoning itself and organizes the ways in which we are even able to reason at all, meditating deeply on epistemology and what knowledge is. He concludes knowledge requires causation to be known. There is real knowledge in which the cause is known and then just correlation (which tricks the senses), then in the world of debate, there is rhetoric(seductive similar to correlation, but not valid argument) and logic where the conclusions actually follow from the premises. He says, in addition to deductions (arguments with syllogisms), we ultimately require unprovable demonstrations (primitive claims about reality that are obvious and observable with the senses). He reduces reality as much as he can and leaves us convinced that language is this sloppy thing that serves it's purpose, but can't fully capture reality with the precision that reasoning often requires. Every bad argument is a testament to the failure of improper definition/categorization or sophistry. Every argument can be stripped down, like a long string of programming, to hundreds of premises, bult upon syllogism, built upon previous conclusions, built upon premises, until finally, one can pinpoint the original demonstration(assumption).

Imagine debate taking place like this? I tried to find the practical application of this and you see glimpses of it in apologetics debates. After much name calling you get people laying down first principles and original definitions of "reality". Entertaining for those with the stomach.
The power of this system is immense and many people get sucked into the philosophical rabbit hole of logic. Many continue approaching it as the end all be all to philosophy in the analytic school, and critics continue to point out it's limitations and shortcomings (Dr. Gregory Sadler has recommended Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter for the limits of logic). Aristotle dominated logic for over 2000 years and wasn't really revised or revisited until the 19th century which is an unbelievable triumph. This work will leave you with the appreciation of how much Aristotle advanced human thought compared to his predecessors. 1 star given only for the pain of reading, 5 stars for the perspective gained from the ideas.

[Ciuras Adrian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Let's make this clear: if u are a student at philosophy besides the Categories it is not really worth it to read any other but if u want i can make a short list:
The Categories: must read
On Interpretation: if u want sure if not is the same almost, in other words i am neutral about it
Prior Analytics: did u take a logics class then it is a hard NO because this is classical logic so what is the point in reading it since you studied the modern one (u dont need to read things u know are wrong) and also he does not find all the syllogisms that are valid (later medieval people did)
Posterior Analytics: almost as strong must as the Categories, it is about epistemology but if u are lazy just read the last chapter of the second book to get a summary by Aristotel
Topics: good start and ending but boring middle, so u can go fast trough it by reading 1st and last chapter
On Sophistical Refutations: this is a nice one to read but not a must, it reminded me about "The art of always being right" by Schopenhauer but in a more relaxed and methodical Aristotelic way of doing philosophy.
If u don't wanna read everything but want to have a sense of the book this is a nice list by a philosophy teacher in this book: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/sho... but i would suggest to read the entire Categories.

[Ryan Weisenburger · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is Aristotles making of Logic. I think if he was alive today he’d be a programmer of the most bleeding edge. It was cool see some of the reasoning in action of the previous teachers Plato who was a student of Socrates. He understood they were collectively architecting the framework that civilization would come later to rely upon.

It is always thrilling to hear ancient men talk of their “modern” day. And it was to them. I can see now how the language constructs they built directly constitutes even to our modern programming languages. In terms of logic; they were using the same terms! Class, module, composition, recursion. The end really reminded me of Socrates. Last 25% Gets so good.

[C.A. Gray]

My husband and I listened to a philosophy course that highlighted first Plato's Republic, then this. I loved the first, so I thought I'd try this too, especially since I understood this to contain the very first seeds of a comprehensive course on logic. Unfortunately, unlike the "Republic," which was a dialogue and therefore sort of like reading a novel, this was almost unreadable. It's basically a textbook that starts off with defining parts of speech and other non-concrete concepts. I skipped ahead to the logic section, but there are almost no examples, it's all A, B, C stuff that I can't keep straight without thinking very hard about each bit and coming up with my own examples in order to do so. And I just don't care that much.

[Camilla Pruccoli 🎃☕️🪄 · Rating 4 out of 5]

Le opere di filosofia mi fanno innamorare e mi “sfiancano” (cerebralmente e fisicamente) al contempo.
Ammetto che senza l’obbligo di avvicinarmi a quest’opera per motivi universitari, molto probabilmente ne avrei abbandonato lo studio (non si può parlare di “semplice” lettura, qui), per questione di complessità e mole (la mia versione consta di più di 1000 pagine, scritte in piccolo). Contiene una complessità e una varietà da perdere la testa. Ma di fatto, la parte della Logica soprattutto la considero inestimabile e imperdibile.

[Mark Bejar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Si bien entiendo que el objetivo de esta obra sea fungir como una guía hacia la dialéctica y la lógica mediante una serie de tratados, considero que no hay mejor manera de entender su contenido que ponerlo en práctica. No es suficiente el simple hecho de leerla, hay que escribir y hablar también, de acuerdo a los principios que plantea Aristoteles.

[H.d. · Rating 4 out of 5]

se existe um princípio da lógica ocidental é aqui. curiosamente atual em alguns aspectos e instigante pelas discordâncias que levanta (para mim ao menos). não tenho certeza se a tradução, principalmente de Categorias, foi feliz.

[Colm · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really have very little good to say about this translation/edition. Utterly impenetrable in English and doubles down on this offence by containing printed passages of untranslated, unannotated Ancient Greek often in the middle of sentences. It didn’t cost much but God do I want that money back.

[Mind · Rating 4 out of 5]

اُرگانون؛ به معنی ابزار و وسیله

اُرگانون ؛ نامی است که شاگردان ارسطو بر شش رساله از تألیفات او در علم منطق نهادند این رساله ها به شرح زیر میباشد:


۱-آناکاویک نخست
۲-آناکاویک دوم
۳-در پیرامون ابطالهای سوفیستی
۴-جایگاههای بحث
۵-مقوله ها
۶-در پیرامون گزارش

[Stewart Lindstrom]

Aristotle puts forth his systematic theories on how we arrive at knowledge. Essential reading for anyone who wants to understand inductive reasoning, syllogisms, or the entire trajectory of Western philosophy.