Studying Aristotelian Syllogism according to Implicative and Conductive Accounts

Aristotelian Logic, the oldest system of reasoning, has always been come into focus. The Syllogism as the focal issue amid Aristotle’s logic has caused many controversial discussions. After Classic Logic expansion in the 20th century, logicians had a chance to study Aristotelian Syllogism, especially premises-conclusion relation, precisely. In 1951, Jan Lukasiewicz suggested Conditional-Implicative perception and examined the Syllogistic system within axiomatic confines. Lukasiewicz believed a conditional sentence with conjunctive premises as the antecedent could thoroughly represent a perfect mood. Twenty years later, Timothy Smiley and John Corcoran criticized Lukasiewicz’s account independently. As believed by them, Syllogism is a deduction, and Aristotelian Syllogism must be studied in the context of the Natural Deduction system. In the 80s, Paul Thom claimed that Aristotle’s Syllogism could be taken as Triadic Implication. As stated by Thom, a syllogism is a conditional sentence without a conjunctive antecedent. The present article begins with a brief introduction on each standpoint. Then the Implicative and Conductive accounts and their relation to Aristotelian Syllogism are investigated.