We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Logic didn’t develop much in the period from the early Stoics to Boethius. Certainly, there was nothing to match the ground-breaking discoveries of Aristotle and Chrysippus. Aristotle found for us the figures of the syllogism, and in the course of proving those forms to be correct, uncovered and exploited numerous logical laws. He even managed to make steps in the right direction with his modal syllogistic. The early Stoics found for us the indemonstrables, the method of analysis, and the themata. There are few, if any, comparable discoveries in the later period. The closest anyone came was Galen with his relational syllogisms, a ‘third class’ of syllogisms that Galen argued was a necessary supplement to Aristotelian and Stoic syllogistic. Moreover, it is also hard to deny that there were some steps backwards taken by some of the later logicians, by which I mean there were some serious misunderstandings of the logical theory of their predecessors.
Sextus Empiricus' Ten Modes of Scepticism seem to be devices to generate equal and opposing arguments to dogmatic arguments. An account is proposed of Sextus' Five Modes (the Modes of Agrippa) according to which they should be viewed in the same way. This contrasts with the usual interpretation of them, where they are thought of as codifying the sceptic’s rejection of certain types of argumentation on the basis of the sceptic’s taking a view about the epistemic inadequacy of those types of argumentation. On the proposed interpretation, when the sceptic deploys the Five Modes, he finds himself unmoved by a certain dogmatic argument because he finds himself in a state of suspension of judgement in the face of equal and opposing arguments, and not because he rejects on epistemic grounds the way in which the dogmatist argued. An analogy is suggested between the the Aristotelian topoi and the sceptical modes as being devices for generating arguments.