Scott Crom
June 19th, 2005, 04:59 PM
Tim Lodge asked about the mnemonic from which BAROKO comes.
Here's more than you ever wanted to know:
Aristotle was not only the Father of Logic, but his work in that
area reigned unchallenged and unmodified well into the 19th
century. The core of that logic was the so-called categorical
syllogism.
A categorical syllogism consists of three propositions (two
premisses and a conclusion), each of which states the total or
partial inclusion or exclusion of one category (i.e., a class or
set of objects) in another.
The form of a syllogism is uniquely determined by its figure and
its mood. There are four figures, depending on the location of
the middle term, the one to which both the subject and predicate
of the conclusion (respectively, the minor term and the manor
term) are related. The mood is determined by the kind of each
proposition: universal affirmative (A), universal negative (E),
particular affirmative (I), and particular negative (O).
Thus a syllogism in Barbara is Mood AAA, figure 1, aka AAA-1. The
perennial example is: All men are mortal, Socrates is a man;
therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Actually this example, although
perennial, isn't fully accurate, because 'Socrates' refers not to
a class or category, but to a singular individual. Modern logic
enters here, distinguishing between membership in a class and one
class being included in another.)
There are exactly 19 valid forms of the traditional syllogism.
Medieval logicians developed a mnemonic to remember them easily.
It's a verse supposedly in Latin, stating which moods are valid
in the four figures:
Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferioque prioris;
Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroko secundae;
Tertia, Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton,
Bokardo, Ferison, habet; quarta insuper addit
Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, Fesapo, Fresison.
BAROKO is thus a syllogism in AOO-2, namely,
All P is M
Some S are not M
Therefore, Some S are not P.
To flesh out that form:
All Dixonary players are intellectuals.
Some street fighters are not intellectuals.
Some street fighters are not Dixonary players.
There are few further refinements. Aristotalian logic was far
more qualitatively oriented than quantitatively; some forms were
just "nicer" than others, although no more valid. Figure 1 was
thought to be the nicest, so in the other three figures,
consonants following some of the vowels show how that form could
be transformed into one in Figure 1. (Details omitted here...)
Now, aren't you sorry you asked?
Scott (who used to teach logic, albeit somewhat past Aristotle's
time)
Here's more than you ever wanted to know:
Aristotle was not only the Father of Logic, but his work in that
area reigned unchallenged and unmodified well into the 19th
century. The core of that logic was the so-called categorical
syllogism.
A categorical syllogism consists of three propositions (two
premisses and a conclusion), each of which states the total or
partial inclusion or exclusion of one category (i.e., a class or
set of objects) in another.
The form of a syllogism is uniquely determined by its figure and
its mood. There are four figures, depending on the location of
the middle term, the one to which both the subject and predicate
of the conclusion (respectively, the minor term and the manor
term) are related. The mood is determined by the kind of each
proposition: universal affirmative (A), universal negative (E),
particular affirmative (I), and particular negative (O).
Thus a syllogism in Barbara is Mood AAA, figure 1, aka AAA-1. The
perennial example is: All men are mortal, Socrates is a man;
therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Actually this example, although
perennial, isn't fully accurate, because 'Socrates' refers not to
a class or category, but to a singular individual. Modern logic
enters here, distinguishing between membership in a class and one
class being included in another.)
There are exactly 19 valid forms of the traditional syllogism.
Medieval logicians developed a mnemonic to remember them easily.
It's a verse supposedly in Latin, stating which moods are valid
in the four figures:
Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferioque prioris;
Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroko secundae;
Tertia, Darapti, Disamis, Datisi, Felapton,
Bokardo, Ferison, habet; quarta insuper addit
Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris, Fesapo, Fresison.
BAROKO is thus a syllogism in AOO-2, namely,
All P is M
Some S are not M
Therefore, Some S are not P.
To flesh out that form:
All Dixonary players are intellectuals.
Some street fighters are not intellectuals.
Some street fighters are not Dixonary players.
There are few further refinements. Aristotalian logic was far
more qualitatively oriented than quantitatively; some forms were
just "nicer" than others, although no more valid. Figure 1 was
thought to be the nicest, so in the other three figures,
consonants following some of the vowels show how that form could
be transformed into one in Figure 1. (Details omitted here...)
Now, aren't you sorry you asked?
Scott (who used to teach logic, albeit somewhat past Aristotle's
time)