چکیده:
ﻳﻜﻲ از ﭘﺮﺳﺶﻫﺎی اﺳﺎﺳﻲ در ﻣﻨﻄﻖ اﻳﻦ اﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﭼـﺮا ارﺳـﻄﻮ ﺑـﻪ »ﻣﻨﻄـﻖ ﺷـﺮﻃﻲ« ﻧﭙﺮداﺧﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ؟ او ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮان ﻣﺪون ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ اﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﻲ ﻧﺪاﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ؟ آﻳﺎ اﻳﻦ ﺑﻲﺗﻮﺟﻬﻲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻳﻚ ﻏﻔﻠﺖ اﺳﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻋﻤﺪی اﺳﺖ و ارﺳﻄﻮ دﻟﻴﻠﻲ ﺑﺮای آن دارد؟ ﻣﺎ در اﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﭘﺲ از ﺑﺮرﺳﻲ ﻣﻨﻄـﻖ ﺷـﺮﻃﻲ )ﻗﻀـﺎﻳﺎ و ﻗﻴﺎسﻫﺎی ﺷﺮﻃﻲ( از دﻳﺪﮔﺎه رواﻗﻴﻮن و ﺑﻴﺎن اﻫﻤﻴﺖ آن ﻧﺰد ﻣﻨﻄﻖداﻧﺎن ﺟﺪﻳﺪ، ﺑﻪ ﻣﺒـﺎﻧﻲ ﻧﻈﺮی و ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ دو ﻧﻈﺎم ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺣﻤﻠﻲ و ﺷﺮﻃﻲ ﻣﻲﭘﺮدازﻳﻢ. ﺑﺎ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺔ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ارﺳﻄﻮ و ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ دﻳﺪﮔﺎه ﺧﺎص او در ﻣﻮرد ﻣﻘﻮﻻت و اﻧـﺪراج اﺷـﻴﺎ در ﻣﻘﻮﻻت دهﮔﺎﻧﻪ، ﻣﻌﻠﻮم ﻣﻲﺷﻮد ﻛﻪ ارﺳﻄﻮ دارای ﺗﻔﻜﺮی ذاتﮔﺮا ﺑﻮده و اﻳﻦ اﻣﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻔﻜـﺮ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪﮔﺮای رواﻗﻴﻮن ﻛﺎﻣﻼ ﻣﺘﻔﺎوت اﺳﺖ؛ زﻳﺮا در اﻧﺪﻳﺸـﺔ ﻓﻠﺴـﻔﻲ رواﻗﻴـﻮن ﺑـﻪ ﻗـﻮاﻧﻴﻦ ﺧﺎرﺟﻲ اﺷﻴﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد و ﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ذات ﻳﺎ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺖ آﻧﻬﺎ. ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮاﻳﻦ، رواﻗﻴﻮن از ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺣﻤﻠـﻲ ﻋﺪول ﻛﺮده و ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺷﺮﻃﻲ ﭘﺮداﺧﺘﻪاﻧﺪ زﻳﺮا ﭼﻨـﻴﻦ ﻧﮕﺮﺷـﻲ ﺑـﻪ ﻣﻮﺟـﻮدات اﻗﺘﻀـﺎی ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻲ اﻧﺪراﺟﻲ و ﺣﻤﻠﻲ را ﻧﺪارد؛ ﻫﻤﭽﻨـﺎنﻛـﻪ ﺑـﺎ ﻧﮕـﺎه ﻣﻘﻮﻟـﻪای ﺑـﻪ ﻣﻮﺟـﻮدات ﻋـﺎﻟﻢ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮان ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮرت ﺷﺮﻃﻲ و ﺑﺎﺗﺮدﻳﺪ و ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﺳﺨﻦ ﮔﻔﺖ. ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎرت دﻳﮕﺮ، ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟـﻪ ﺑـﻪ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ و ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ارﺳﻄﻮ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮان ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺷـﺮﻃﻲ را ﭘـﺬﻳﺮﻓﺖ. ﺑـﻪ ﻫﻤـﻴﻦ دﻟﻴﻞ ارﺳﻄﻮ در آﺛﺎر ﺧﻮد وارد ﺑﺤﺚ درﺑﺎرة ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ و ﻗﻴﺎسﻫـﺎی ﺷـﺮﻃﻲ ﻧﺸـﺪه اﺳـﺖ، در ﺣﺎﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺤﻠﺔ ﻣﮕﺎری ﭘﻴﺶ از او ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﭘﺮداﺧﺘﻪ ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ و ﭘﺲ از او ﻧﻴﺰ اﻳﻦ ﺑﺤﺚ ]ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ درﻳﺎﻓﺖ: 41/7/8831؛ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪ: 12/9/8831[ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ رواﻗﻴﻮن ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﺟﺪی دﻧﺒﺎل ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ ﭼﺮا ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﺴﺘﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳـﻲ آﻧـﺎن ﺳـﺎزﮔﺎرﺗﺮ ﺑﻮد.
It is one of the basic questions of the Logic that why Aristotle has not
dealt with conditional logic. How has the very originator of logic not paid
any attention to such an important topic? Has this carelessness been some
kind of ignorance or has it been deliberated and Aristotle has had good
reasons for that? In this article, after having examined the conditional logic
(conditional syllogism and proposition) from the stoics’ point of view and
explaining its significance for modern logicians, theoretical and
philosophical bases of the two systems of predicative and conditional logic
have been discussed.
With studying Aristotle’s philosophy and having in mind his specific views
regarding categories and the insertion of the things in The Ten Categories
we can conclude that Aristotle has had an essence-based way of thinking
and this is completely different from empirical thinking of the stoics,
because stoics deal with external laws of the things in their philosophical
thinking, rather than with essence and nature of the things. Therefore, the
stoics have deviated from the predicative logic and have focused on
conditional logic, because this kind of viewing the beings does not have the
necessities of an insertion and predicative system. In the same way that, we
cannot speak conditionally and dubiously with a class-based look at the
world's beings. In other words, regarding Aristotle's philosophical and
ontological bases, we cannot accept conditional logic. For this reason,
Aristotle has not entered discussing conditional syllogism and proposition in
his works, whereas Megara school have dealt with these discussions before
Aristotle, and after him this discussion has been seriously followed by the
stoics, because it has been more compatible with their ontology.
خلاصه ماشینی:
ﺑـﻪ ﻫﻤـﻴﻦ دﻟﻴﻞ ارﺳﻄﻮ در آﺛﺎر ﺧﻮد وارد ﺑﺤﺚ درﺑﺎرة ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ و ﻗﻴﺎسﻫـﺎی ﺷـﺮﻃﻲ ﻧﺸـﺪه اﺳـﺖ، در ﺣﺎﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺤﻠﺔ ﻣﮕﺎری ﭘﻴﺶ از او ﺑﻪ اﻳﻦ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﭘﺮداﺧﺘﻪ ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ و ﭘﺲ از او ﻧﻴﺰ اﻳﻦ ﺑﺤﺚ 1 ]ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ درﻳﺎﻓﺖ: 41/7/8831؛ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﺗﺎﻳﻴﺪ: 12/9/8831[ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ رواﻗﻴﻮن ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮر ﺟﺪی دﻧﺒﺎل ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ ﭼﺮا ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﺴﺘﻲﺷﻨﺎﺳـﻲ آﻧـﺎن ﺳـﺎزﮔﺎرﺗﺮ ﺑﻮد.
(Paul Edward, 1979, pﻓﺎراﺑﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ در ﻛﺘﺎب ﺷﺮحاﻟﻌﺒﺎره ارﺳﻄﻮ ﻧﮕﺎﺷﺘﻪ اﺳـﺖ: »در آﺛـﺎر ارﺳﻄﻮ ﻗﻴﺎس ﺷﺮﻃﻲ ﻧﻴﺎﻣﺪه اﺳﺖ اﻣﺎ در ﺗﻔﺎﺳﻴﺮی ﻛﻪ از ﺗﺌﻮﻓﺮاﺳﺘﻮس ﻧﻘﻞ ﻣﻲﮔﺮدد ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻗﻴﺎسﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد« )ﻓﺎراﺑﻲ، 9041ق، ص581(، اﻟﺒﺘﻪ اﮔﺮ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ اﻣﺮی درﺳﺖ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻣﻲﺗﻮان آن را ﻧﻮﻋﻲ ﺗـﺄﺛﻴﺮﭘـﺬﻳﺮی از ﺗﻔﻜﺮ رواﻗﻲ- ﻣﮕﺎری داﻧﺴﺖ ﺿﻤﻦ اﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ اول ﻣﺬﻛﻮر ﺷﺒﺎﻫﺖ زﻳﺎدی ﺑـﻪ ﺿـﺮب Barbaraدارد و ﻣﻲﺗﻮان آن را ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﺮﻃﻲ از ﻗﻴﺎس ﺣﻤﻠﻲ داﻧﺴﺖ.
ﻫﻤﺎنﻃﻮر ﻛﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻴﻢ ﻣﮕﺎرﻳﻮن از ﻣﻴﺎن ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎی ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﺮﻛﺐ ﺷﺮﻃﻲ را ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﺮده ﺑﻮدﻧـﺪ، اﻣـﺎ اﻳﻦ ﺳﺨﻦ را ﻣﻲﺗﻮان ﺑﺎ ﻣﺒﻨﺎ ﻗﺮار ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺷﺮط در ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺮﮔﻪ آﻏﺎز ﺷﺪه اﺳﺖ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻛﺮد؛ ﭼﺮا ﻛﻪ در ﻣﻨﻄﻖ اﺑﺘﻜﺎری ﻓﺮﮔﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ دو ﻋﻼﻣﺖ ) ~ ,→( وﺟﻮد داﺷﺖ و ﻋﻄﻒ و ﻓﺼـﻞ و دوﺷـﺮﻃﻲ ﺑـﻪ ﻋﻨـﻮان ﻋﻼﻣﺖﻫﺎی ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎی ﻣﺮﻛﺐ دﻳﮕﺮ از روی آﻧﻬﺎ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ اﺳﺖ )34.
ﭼﻨﺎﻧﭽﻪ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮد، ﺧﺮوﺳﻴﭙﻮس ﺑﻪ وﺟﻮد ﭘﺎرادوﻛﺲﻫﺎی اﺳﺘﻠﺰام در ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺷﺮﻃﻲ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ داﺷـﺘﻪ و ﺑﺎ اراﺋﺔ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺟﺪﻳﺪی ﻛﻮﺷﻴﺪه اﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺷﺮﻃﻲﻫﺎی ﻏﻴﺮ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ارزﺷﻲ، ﻳﻌﻨﻲ آن دﺳﺘﻪ از ﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎی ﺷﺮﻃﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺻﺪق آﻧﻬﺎ ﺻﺮﻓﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺪق و ﻛﺬب ﻣﻘﺪم و ﺗﺎﻟﻲ ﺑﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﻧﺪارد و ﻋﻼوه ﺑﺮ ﻧﺴـﺒﺖ ﺗﻌﻠﻴـﻖ و ﺗﺒﻌﻴـﺖ ﺗـﺎﻟﻲ از ﻣﻘﺪم و ﺑﻪ اﺻﻄﻼح ﻗﺎﻟﺐ اﮔﺮ- آﻧﮕﺎه، ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ دﻳﮕﺮی ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻋﻠﻴﺖ ﻣﻘﺪم ﺑﺮ ﺗﺎﻟﻲ ﻳـﺎ اﺳـﺘﻠﺰام و ...