Avicenna on syllogisms composed of opposite premises (Q2658296)

In this article, the applications and truth conditions of Avicenna's syllogisms are examined, in which two judgements are said to stand in contrary or contradictory relation. The author believes that because of an oppositional relation of judgements, Aristotelian syllogisms can also be understood in terms of paraconsistent logic. Paraconsistent logics are non-explosive logics, i.e. logics in which the law of explosion is not valid. As an example of an inference constructed from opposite premises, the author gives: ``All men are animals. Some men are not animals. All animals are men.'' The author constructs such asyllogism on the basis of the modus Cesare (``No \(C\) is \(A\). All \(B\)s are \(A\)s. No \(B\)s are \(C\)s.''), where \(B\) and \(C\) are supposed to stand for the same term. Avicenna seems to have been inspired to write a treatise by such an idea. He argues that opposing premises of a valid syllogism cannot be true, but this is not to disprove the validity of the syllogism. Unfortunately, many typos in the paper do not increase comprehensibility. For the entire collection see [Zbl 1459.03003].