Aristotle and Avicenna's Solution to Overcome the Limitation of Syllogism

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Associate Professor of Philosophy Department, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Understanding syllogism requires recognizing its limitations and the First Teacher’s strategies for overcoming them. Aristotle’s syllogism, due to its conceptual focus, cannot address relational propositions. To escape this constraint, Aristotle resorted to the relational context (sīāq-e taʿalloqī), whereas Avicenna, due to his formalist perspective, could not adopt this approach. Therefore, he expanded the very concept of syllogism. Aristotle’s ‘Organon’ and Avicenna’s ‘The Book of Healing’ (al-Shifāʾ) form the two primary texts of this study. Our method for analyzing these texts is critical and hermeneutic; that is, we directly examined the Organon and asked through a critical reading: Why does the First Teacher rely solely on relational context to present his three types of syllogism? With the same approach, we turned to Avicenna’s syllogism and found that he, too, recognized the limitations of syllogism but could not utilize relational context because, influenced by Porphyry, he leaned toward formal syllogism. Thus, to overcome its limitations, he adopted Galen’s method - expanding the definition of syllogism to include Stoic conditional reasoning. To escape the constraints of syllogism, Aristotle turned to relational context, while Avicenna expanded the meaning of syllogism and introduced the exceptional syllogism. Students of Aristotelian logic may become familiar with the different methods of these two great teachers for overcoming the limitations of syllogism and the reasons behind their divergence.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

al-Fārābī. (1986). Kitāb al-alfāẓ al-mustaʿmalah fī al-manṭiq [Utterances employed in logic] (M. Mahdī, Ed.). Dār al-Mashriq.
al-Fārābī. (1987). Al-Manṭiqiyyāt (M. T. Dāneshpazhūh, Ed.). Kitābkhāneh-ye Āyatollāh al-ʿUzmā Marʿashī Najafī.
al-Fārābī. (1996). Iḥṣāʾ al-ʿulūm (ʿA. Bū Mulḥim, Ed.). Dār wa-Maktabat al-Hilāl.
Al-e-Yassin, J. (1984). al-Fārābī fī ḥudūdihi wa rusūmihi. ʿĀlam al-Kutub.
Aristotle. (1924). Metaphysics (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
Aristotle. (1952). Prior and posterior analytics. In W. D. Ross (Ed.), The works of Aristotle translated into English. The Clarendon Press.
Bochenski, I. M. (1951). Ancient formal logic. North-Holland Publication Company.
Copi, I. M., & Cohen, C. (2014). Introduction to logic. Pearson Education Limited.
Cycleback, D. (2024, December 30). The limits of human logic. https://davidcycleback.com/2024/12/30
Ibn Khaldūn. (2014). Introduction (M. Parvin Gonabadi, Trans.). Scientific and Cultural Publishing Company. (In Persian)
Ibn Sīnā [Avicenna]. (1973). The propositional logic of Avicenna: A translation from al-Shifāʾ: al-Qiyās (N. Shehaby, Trans.). D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Ibn Sīnā [Avicenna]. (1984). Remarks and admonitions: Part one: Logic (S. C. Inati, Trans.). Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
Ibn Sīnā [Avicenna]. (2016). Al-Shifāʾ: al-Qiyās (W. Hodges, Trans.). Online publishing.
Kant, I. (1980). Critique of pure reason.
Khalef Nouria, & Alla Mokhtar. (2024). Deficiencies of Aristotelian logic from the perspective of symbolic logic. Psychology and Education Journal. http://psychologyandeducation.net/pae/index.php/pae/article/view/8264
Kneale, W., & Kneale, M. (1971). The development of logic. The Clarendon Press.
Porphyry the Phoenician. (1975). Isagoge (E. W. Warren, Trans.). Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
Thabit al-Fandi, M. (1972). Principles of mathematical logic (Uṣūl al-manṭiq al-riyāḍī). Dār al-Nahḍat al-ʿArabīya.
Zakiani, G. R. (2007). The art of reasoning. Ruyesheno Publication.
Zakiani, G. R. (2021). Logical essays. Taha Publication.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Journal of Philosophical Investigations
Volume 20, Issue 56 - Serial Number 56
Articles
Issue 56, Autumn 2026
October 2026
Pages 617-640

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics