Comparison Of 13thAD Logician's Point Of View And Gelenbevi In Theory Of Syllogism

The traditional logician’s explanation on categorical syllogism، make the analysis of controversial syllogism and other relative syllogism، very difficult. The thirteenth century logicians use two methods to solve this problem. One method is Ibn Sina''s method، which adds a premise to syllogism، and the second method is Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and Katebis’ method، which provide syllogism relying on middle terms and without adding a premise. In eighteenth century، Gelenbevi tried to find another way of closer justification on these syllogisms، by using other analysis on relative syllogism. The traditional logician’s explanation on categorical syllogism، make the analysis of controversial syllogism and other relative syllogism، very difficult. The thirteenth century logicians use two methods to solve this problem. One method is Ibn Sina''s method، which adds a premise to syllogism، and the second method is Fakhr al-Din al-Razi and Katebis’ method، which provide syllogism relying on middle terms and without adding a premise. In eighteenth century، Gelenbevi tried to find another way of closer justification on these syllogisms، by using other analysis on relative syllogism.