Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Dictum de omni (sometimes misinterpreted as universal instantiation) [2] is the principle that whatever is universally affirmed of a kind is affirmable as well for any subkind of that kind. Example: (1) Dogs are mammals. (2) Mammals have livers. Therefore (3) dogs have livers. Premise (1) states that "dog" is a subkind of the kind "mammal".
The logical square, also called square of opposition or square of Apuleius, has its origin in the four marked sentences to be employed in syllogistic reasoning: "Every man is bad," the universal affirmative - The negation of the universal affirmative "Not every man is bad" (or "Some men are not bad") - "Some men are bad," the particular ...
A proposition may be universal or particular, and it may be affirmative or negative. Traditionally, the four kinds of propositions are: A-type: Universal and affirmative ("All philosophers are mortal") E-type: Universal and negative ("All philosophers are not mortal") I-type: Particular and affirmative ("Some philosophers are mortal")
When used in the context of ethics, the meaning of universal refers to that which is true for "all similarly situated individuals". [3] Rights, for example in natural rights, or in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, for those heavily influenced by the philosophy of the Enlightenment and its conception of a human nature, could be considered universal.
In Aristotelian logic, Baralipton (also Bamalip or Bramantip) is a mnemonic word used to identify a form of syllogism.Specifically, the first two propositions are universal affirmative (A), and the third (conclusion) particular affirmative (I)-- hence BARALIPTON.
For example, by obversion, a universal affirmative statement become a universal negative statement with the predicate term that is the class complement of the predicate term of the original universal affirmative statement.
The general concept or principle of moral universalizability is that moral principles, maxims, norms, facts, predicates, rules, etc., are universally true; that is, if they are true as applied to some particular case (an action, person, etc.) then they are true of all other cases of this sort.
An existential fallacy is committed in a medieval categorical syllogism because it has two universal premises and a particular conclusion with no assumption that at least one member of the class exists, an assumption which is not established by the premises. In modern logic, the presupposition that a class has members is seen as unacceptable.