Description

Syllogism is closely related to logic. it simply refers to the kind of logical argument that applies deductive
reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed. According to
Britannica, syllogism is described as an aspect of logic whereby a valid deductive argument having
two premises and a conclusion. The traditional type is the categorical syllogism in which both premises and the
conclusion are simple declarative statements that are constructed using only three simple terms between them,
each term appearing twice (as a subject and as a predicate):

For instance,

All humans are mortal; no gods are mortal; therefore no men are gods.

The argument in the syllogism above is valid by virtue of the fact that it would not be possible to assert the
premises and to deny the conclusion without contradicting oneself.
 Table of contents
1. Aristotle's Conceptualization of Syllogism

2. References
 1. Aristotle's Conceptualization of Syllogism
Aristotle defined a syllogism as “discourse whereby, certain things being stated, something other than what is
stated follows of necessity from their being so”. In practice, according to Aristotle, syllogism are arguments
containing two premises and a conclusion, each of which is a categorical proposition. The subject
and predicate of the conclusion each occur in one of the premises, together with a third term (the middle) that is
found in both premises but not in the conclusion. A syllogism thus argues that because α and γ are related in
certain ways to β (the middle) in the premises, they are related in a certain way to one another in the conclusion.

Also, Aristotle distinguished three different figures of syllogisms, according to how the middle is related to the
other two terms in the premises. According to Aristotle, to prove α of γ syllogistically, one finds a middle β such
that either α is predicated of β and β of γ (first figure), β is predicated of both α and γ (second figure), or else
both α and γ are predicated of β (third figure). All syllogisms must fall into one or another of these figures. But
there is plainly a fourth possibility, that β is predicated of α and γ of β.

A notable aspect of Aristotle's description of syllogism is that the typical sentences to which logical rules are
supposed to apply are temporally indefinite. A sentence such as “Socrates is sitting,” for example, involves
an implicit reference to the moment of utterance (“Socrates is now sitting”), so the same sentence can be both
true at one moment and false at another, depending on what Socrates happens to be doing at the time in
question. This variability in truth or falsehood is not found in sentences that make explicit reference to an
absolute chronology, as does “Socrates is sitting at 12 noon on June 1, 400 BCE.”