Thursday, September 24, 2015
Just Musing About Categorical Syllogisms: Nothing Overly Serious
While discussing categorical syllogisms today in medieval class, I made the statement that the major premise "All humans are mortal" technically contains an adjective in the predicate slot (i.e., "mortal") although this adjective is capable of functioning as a noun. But it doesn't seem to be functioning as a noun (substantivally) in this example, and indeed, the dictionaries confirm that when mortal is used this way in the predicate slot, then it's functioning adjectivally. Yet categorical syllogisms or categorical statements are supposed to name categories or classes, not qualities. So why does the world's most famous major premise have an adjective in the predicate position rather than a noun?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Here is my first though: It is just an abbreviated form of what is implied, i.e., All humans are mortal beings.
Thanks, Sean. You're right that the thought is implied, but logic is about precision and standard form. And using an adjective in this way is usually not considered standard form since nouns or substantives name things whereas adjectives (by themselves) usually name properties/attributes/qualities or characteristics of things. Best!
Maybe some logician got lazy and it should be "All humans are mortal[[s]]." My thinking is as follows:
All people are lazy sometimes,
logicians are people,
therefore logicians are lazy sometimes.
Well lazy is an adjective, so that won't work, but o well. Curse you adjectives!
Words are odd,
Adjectives are words,
therefore adjectives are odd.
All humans exist mortally ?
Duncan, one problem is that "mortally" is an adverb, which modifies the verb "exist." Paul Herrick argues that both the subject and predicates should be nouns when one is using standard syllogistic form.
Sean,
That's pretty good, but the same problem crops up even when we make a syllogism about adjectives. Go figure. :)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mortal
An adjective and a noun ?
True, "mortal" can be used as an adjective or noun--depending on the context. But if we say, "All humans are mortal," is the word being used substantively (as a noun) or is it adjectival? The conclusion of the syllogism states, "Socrates is mortal," instead of Socrates is a mortal or mortal being. That too indicates the word is being used adjectivally.
See http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/mortal
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5I9rCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq="human+is+mortal"&source=bl&ots=0_IltX5C4T&sig=Lpx4mRjCASZDcNklVuMXMa4KxUk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ6AEwA2oVChMI1bWNxYmnyAIVE4MaCh1Nswk2#v=onepage&q=%22human%20is%20mortal%22&f=false
Perhaps this kind of logic is assumed. For a mortal human, receiving a mortal wound the outcome of the conditions are the same apart from timing. It seems that the noun and adjective functions of a word like this are inseparable.
I agree that we all get the point even if the argument structure (grammatically) is noun in the subject position, linking verb/copula, then an adjective in the predicate slot. We might even say that the logic is assumed, as you write. But all I'm pointing out is that "All men are mortal" is evidently not in standard logical form because it's the major premise of a categorical syllogism which is supposed to deal with classes. However, the adjective "mortal" does not name a class/category, but the quality of a category. Of course, if someone utters the sentence "God don't make no junk"--we understand the meaning although the utterance is not standard English. It's the same principle with "All men are mortal" or "Socrates is mortal."
A similar issue also rears it head with Jn 1:1c. The AT translates the Greek there as the Word was "divine." Yet that rendering uses an adjective to render a Greek anarthous noun. Would some other translation not be better?
As you know the problem with the translation of John 1:1 is the lack of the definite article in most English renderings. The translator is just trying to indicate the lack of a definite article in this instance, as per "a god". Wouldn't it be better to be faithful to the original text and indicate the definite articles as originally written & as in keeping with it's understanding in the LXX?
Duncan, the main reason I mentioned Jn 1:1c is because of the noun and adjective issue. To render the 1:1c with "a god" is still a use of the substantive in translation, even if one believes that the noun QEOS has adjectival force in the passage.
I have no problem with the rendering "a god" and even "God" in 1:1c is within the range of meaning, and a noun is being used when that choice is made, to translate a noun. However, I would not suggest rendering John 1:1b: "and the Word was with the God" since that is not how we express things in English.
Jubilee Bible 2000
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.
At least one transistor thought as I do. Te we are not looking at standard Greek and therefore we are not looking at standard English either - we need more precision to avoid misunderstandings.
Why isn't John's Greek standard, especially in Jn 1:1? By "standard" I simply mean that it conforms to Koine Greek grammar just as "God does not make less than perfect entities" conforms to English grammar and is considered to be a standard utterance.
Concerning the rendering above: it's not wrong to use "the God" in 1:1b or to say "the Word was God" in 1:1c. However, "was God" just follows the traditional way of rendering the preverbal anarthrous predicate nominative construction; it's less than novel and I much prefer "a god" or "a deity" to "was God." Even Origen of Alexandria writes that QEOs without the article has a different meaning/signification in 1:1c.
But I'm not going to venture further comment on this subject because I was only trying to illustrate the difference between noun and adjective use. But feel free to reply concerning my claim that John 1:1 is standard Greek.
Koine Greek grammar is not a constant but if you are claiming that it conforms to attic I will not argue it. What I am referring too, as you already know it the unique way LXX style biblical texts, which many of the quotations in John conform have a novel understanding of "ho theos" which is not present in non Jewish period usage. I see a distinction between 1:1c & it's introduction. What that distinction denotes is another matter all together.
The difference should be clearly demonstrated in a translation.
There is always of course exceptions that one may attempt to use to indicate otherwise Like Isaiah 36:19 LXX - but taking into account the scholarly consensus as to this being a later translation in a non Semitic style (when compared to Torah) - it does not carry any real weight, especially since the analysis I have seen is that John quotes LXX, non LXX greek translation & original Hebrew (most importantly). The writer would surely have been familiar with the normal usage of Jewish "ho theos" - it would seem highly improbable to be otherwise.
unfortunately precision is something my pesky tablet seems to lack. Call it a spell checker! more like a spell wrecker.
I am not claiming that koine totally conforms to Attic, but when I refer to standard Koine Greek, I just mean that John 1:1 is standard according to the canons/the accepted usage and customs of koine (not Attic Greek).
Frankly, you'll have to spell out the problem with John 1:1, the LXX and koine Greek because I don't see anything exceptional about Jn 1:1a or 1:1b. Many reasons have been proposed for why 1:1c does not have the article with QEOS, but even prior to John, Philo of Alexandria noted the difference between QEOS with and without the definite article. Origen later insists that the omission at 1:1c is important while Ignatius of Antioch refers to Jesus as QEOS with and without the def. article in his writings.
From Philo in De Somn 1.228-229:
A very glorious boast for the soul, that God should think fit to appear to and to converse with it. And do not pass by what is here said, but examine it accurately, and see whether there are really two Gods. For it is said: "I am the God who was seen by thee;" not in my place, but in the place of God, as if he meant of some other God. What then ought we to say? There is one true God only: but they who are called Gods, by an abuse of language, are numerous; on which account the holy scripture on the present occasion indicates that it is the true God that is meant by the use of the article, the expression being, "I am the God (ho Theos);" but when the word is used incorrectly, it is put without the article, the expression being, "He who was seen by thee in the place," not of the God (tou Theou), but simply "of God" (Theou);
"I am the God who was seen by thee;" - from where does Philo quote ?
Psa 82:1 ψαλμος τω Ασαφ ο θεος εστη εν συναγωγη θεων εν μεσω δε θεους διακρινει
Is Philo calling this psalm an abuse of language?
Here we have the Hebrew poetry:-
part 1 - elohim among the el
Part 2 - Judges the elohim (plural)
who ONLY can judge the el (theos)? - the elohim (ho theos - singular)
I think YLT has a problem here:-
A Psalm of Asaph. God hath stood in the company of God, In the midst God doth judge.
It is interesting to see how certain ideas have been built over time on the basis of LXX rendering.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qymQCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT257&lpg=PT257&dq=%22I+am+the+God+who+was+seen+by+thee;%22&source=bl&ots=f2-ieCwgS-&sig=Kw1T88NNKCx9lB4-QkkESbh1z04&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAmoVChMI4uPt556wyAIVSZIeCh0XmAXy#v=onepage&q=%22I%20am%20the%20God%20who%20was%20seen%20by%20thee%3B%22&f=false
But I still cannot find from where the "god who was seen" is found?
Duncan, Philo is offering a commentary on Gen. 31:12-13.
Ah, thank you Edgar.
The (ha) mighty one (El) of the house of El who is seen as a vision.
http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/31-13.htm
It is interesting how LXX interprets as ο θεος. Unfortunately no DSS fragment.
ha el & elohim are somewhat different but it is apparent as to why the LXX went the way it did but philo seems to forget the most important point (unless I am misreading something) - a vision.
Post a Comment