Ζητεῖν (in opposition to the φυσικὴ σκέψις) more particularly to Plato and the Platonists,' partly with recognition of the superiority of their investigation into notions, partly and chiefly blaming them, because the merely logical treatment, the more it proceeds upon the general notion, the further it is from the particular qualities. He says: 3 λέγω δὲ λογικὴν (τὴν ἀπόδειξιν) διὰ τοῦτο, ὅτι ὅσῳ καθόλου μᾶλλον, ποῤῥωτέρω τῶν οἰκείων ἐστὶν ἀρχῶν. In the time of Cicero Λογική was in common use to denote the doctrine of knowledge and representation (especially whilst the influence of the Stoics lasted). He says, e.g. De Fin. i. 7: in altera philosophiae parte, quae est quaerendi ac disserendi, quae Aoyɩń dicitur. The expression ἡ λογική πραγματεία is common with Alexander of Aphrodisia, the Interpreter of Aristotle. Boethius says: logicen Peripatetici veteres appellaverunt. Seneca and Quintilian use the expression, rationalis philosophia, rationalis pars philosophiae. Thomas of Aquino rightly explains the sense of this in his Commentary on Arist. Anal. Post.: Ratio de suo actu ratiocinari potestet haec est ars logica, i.e. rationalis scientia, quae non solum rationalis ex hoc, quod est secundum rationem, quod est omnibus artibus commune, sed etiam in hoc, quod est circa ipsam artem rationis sicut circa propriam materiam. Cf. Kant,^ who says, that it (Logic) is a science of the reason, not of its forms merely, but also of its matter, since its rules cannot be derived apart from experience, and since it has at the same time reason for its object.' § 17. The earlier Peripatetics, giving their attention to empirical investigation, developed the Logic of Aristotle in a few particulars only. The later Peripatetics restricted themselves to the task of advancing the study of Aristotle's labours by commentaries. 1 Metaph. xii. 1, and elsewhere. 2 Ibid. xiii. 5. 3 De Generat. Animal. ii. 8, p. 747 в, 28. Theophrastus and Eudemus established the theory of Hypothetical and Disjunctive Inference. They developed the theory of the Categorical Syllogism by adding five new ones, moods of the first figure, to the fourteen Aristotelian moods. The so-called Fourth Figure was afterwards constructed out of these. For the particulars, see § 103. Of the Later Peripatetics, the most prominent were Andronikus of Rhodes, who classified the works of Aristotle, and Alexander of Aphrodisias, the Interpreter. The labours of Galen and of the NeoPlatonists are to be added to theirs. See Brandis upon the Greek expounders of the Organon of Aristotle in the Proceedings of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, 1833. § 18. Epikurus (341-270 B.C.) lowers the value of Logic, which he calls Canonic. He places it exclusively at the service of his Hedonist Ethics, passes over the harder doctrines, and makes sense-perception and the conception proceeding from it the final judge of truth. The Stoics, whose mode of thought owed its origin to Zeno of Cittium (circa 300 B.C.), and was built up into a system by Chrysippus (282-209 B.C.) chiefly, developed the Aristotelian doctrine of thought in particular parts, by their elaboration of the doctrine of the hypothetical and disjunctive syllogism, and added to it the beginnings of a theory of perception and of its value for knowledge. From their investigations into the criterion of truth, their Logic, more distinctly than Aristotle's, acquired the character of a theory of knowledge. They attribute to sense-perception, and in a higher degree to thinking, the capacity to become a true picture of actual existence. Some of the Stoics comprehended, under the name Logic, dialectical doctrines (i.e. those of the theory of thinking and knowing) and those of grammar and rhetoric. The Skeptics combated dogmatism in general, and especially that of the Stoics. The chief representatives of Skepticism are the followers of Pyrrho of Elis (circa 320 B.C.), and the Philosophers of the Intermediate Academy. For Epikurus see Diog. Laert. x. 31: Ev Toívvv To Kavóvi λέγει ὁ Ἐπίκουρος, κριτήρια τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις καὶ Tроλýεis Kai Tà Túon. Cicero': tollit definitiones, nihil de dividendo ac partiendo docet; non quo modo efficiatur concludaturque ratio tradit; non qua via captiosa solvantur, ambigua distinguantur ostendit; iudicia rerum in sensibus ponit. Some later Epikureans, Zeno (circa 100 B.C.) and his scholar Philodemus, following in the steps of Epikurus, have treated of the mode of concluding from signs (onμeîa, onμsiοῦσθαι). For the Stoical division of Logic sce Diog. Laert. vii. 41: Tò dè λογικὸν μέρος φασὶν ἔνιοι εἰς δύο διαιρεῖσθαι ἐπιστήμας, εἰς ῥητορ IKηv Kai Eis diaλEKTIKÝν, cf. Senec. Ep. 89; upon the parτacía καταληπτική and the πρόληψις issuing from it, Diog. L. vii. 46 ; Cic. Acad. Post. i. 11: visis non omnibus adiungebant fidem, sed iis solum, quae propriam quandam haberent declarationem earum rerum, quae viderentur--unde postea notiones rerum in animis imprimerentur.-Stob. Eclog. Eth. ii. 128: sivaι dè τὴν ἐπιστήμην κατάληψιν ἀσφαλῆ καὶ ἀμετάπτωτον ὑπὸ λόγου. The Skeptics find no sure ground for distinguishing between two opposite opinions either in perception or in the notion, and therefore limit themselves to the acceptance of the phenomena as such, abstaining (Tоxý) from any judgment upon their objective truth.3 The grounds of doubt which, according to Aristokles, seem to have been collected by Aenesidemus. are quoted by Sext. Emp.5 They rest chiefly upon subjective differences conditioned by the relativity of conceptions. Sextus, a physician of the Empirical School, gives a very 1 De Fin. i. 7. 3 Diog. Laert. ix. 103 sqq. 4 Ap. Euseb. praepar. Evang. xiv. 18. 2 Cf. ib. ii. 6. 5 Hypotyp. Pyrrhon. i. 36 sqq.; Diog. Laert. ix. 79 sqq. copious collection of the whole of the Skeptical arguments of antiquity in his two works which are extant: Πυῤῥωνείων ὑποτυπώσεων βιβλία τρία and Πρὸς μαθηματικοὺς βιβλία ἕνδεκα. $ 19. The Neo-Platonists (whose mode of thought appeared in the third century A.D.), inclining to metaphysical-theosophic speculations, placed the ecstatic intuition of the divine high above scientifically elaborated knowledge. They diligently studied the logical investigations of Plato and Aristotle, without essentially advancing them in an independent way. Plotinus (204-269 A.D.) tried to remodel the Aristotelian doctrine of the Categories; the later Neo-Platonists went back to it. Porphyry (232-304 A.D.), scholar of Plotinus, was the author of the introduction to the Organon of Aristotle, so much read in the Middle Ages. It treats of the logical notions of Genus, Species, Difference, Property, and Accident. Their numerous commentaries upon the writings of Plato and Aristotle, in part still extant, evidence the studies of the Neo-Platonists. Au § 20. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers is essentially a philosophy of religion, and, grappling with the difficulty of the problems nearest it, takes only a secondary interest in the problems of Logic. The Platonic doctrine of ideas attracted their attention, but in a sense which departs essentially from the original one. gustine, following Plotinus, makes the idea immanent in the divine mind. The chief doctrines of the Aristotelian organon were incorporated in the text-books of the so-called seven liberal arts, and thus became an object of instruction in the Christian Schools from the sixth century. The Organon, as well as the Aristotelian works generally, was also diligently studied by the Arabian and Jewish literati. The relation of the Church Fathers to Greek Philosophy is a various one. Justin Martyr (circ. 150 A.D.) thus asserts his conviction : οἱ μετὰ Λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι, κἂν ἄθεοι ἐνομίσθησαν, οἷον ἐν Ἕλλησι μὲν Σωκράτης καὶ Ἡράκλειτος καὶ οἱ ὅμοιοι αὐτοῖς. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others are friends of the Greek Philosophy, and place it at the service of Christian Theology. Others, as Irenaeus, his disciple Hippolytus, and Tertullian, frightened by the Gnostic Syncretism, were afraid of danger from it to Christian doctrine. Others, again, such as Augustine (354-430), keep a middle course. The contact with Neo-Platonism was partly friendly, partly antagonistic. Augustine grounded the truth of knowledge in general on the truth of the knowledge of our inner life (cf. § 40). Ideas are for him: principales formae quaedam vel rationes rerum stabiles atque incommutabiles, quae in divina intelligentia continentur.2 Boëthius (470–525) translated and commented on several treatises of Aristotle's Organon, and explained the Introduction of Porphyry. Marcianus Capella (circ. 430) and Cassiodorus (circ. 500), in their text-books of the seven liberal Arts (Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, and Music), treat, among others, of Dialectic or Logic, following the course of Aristotle. Isidorus Hispalensis (circ. 600), Bede (circ. 700), Alcuin (736–804), follow in their footsteps. Among the Arabian Aristotelians, Avicenna (Ibn Sina, circ. 1000 A.D.) and Averroës (Ibn Roschd, circ. 1175) were specially famed. The most noted of the Jewish Aristotelians was the contemporary of Averroes, Moses Maionides (Moses Ben Maimun, 1135-1204), the light of the Jews of the Middle Ages.' § 21. In the Middle Ages the Scholastic Philosophy developed itself partly under the influence of the Church Fathers, partly under that of the logical writ1 Iustin. Apolog. i. 46, 83 c. 2 De Div. qu. 46. |