Topics and Prior Analytics: Peripatetic Logic between Aristotle and Alexander of Aphrodisias

Topics（Top）I-VIII和Prior Analytics（APr）I-II是亚里士多德的两部逻辑著作。这两部作品都提供了一个什么是演绎论证的说明，并给出了如何找到和建立演绎论证的指示，并给出了一个给定的命题作为结论。这两篇文章所描述的演绎论证的方法和基本结构在几个方面是不同的。这一事实导致现代解释者或多或少地赞同亚里士多德在上述两部著作中演绎理论的不一致性和不相容性。拟议的项目旨在分析和修订这一传统的图景。具体而言，将追求以下三个具体目标：1）系统研究Top和APr之间的整体关系：通过Top和APr I 1-22之间的比较，不相容的印象特别明显。然而，分析APr I 23 ff. APr II清楚地暗示了与Top的连续性比APr I 1-26最初可能暗示的更强。一个系统的研究之间的关系，这两个著作是没有在文献中，本身可以被认为是一个重大贡献，阿斯特丽德奖学金。2)基本理论问题的讨论：需要对Top和APr中提出的演绎论证方法的理论兼容性进行更一般的讨论，以便弄清楚这两种方法不兼容是否有任何深层的理论原因。3)在古代和古代晚期重建Top和Apr中关于演绎论证的辩论：关于2）中提出的一般理论问题的讨论，不仅从历史的角度来看，而且从理论的角度来看，在古代和古代晚期重建关于这个问题的辩论似乎是有希望的：作者智力发展的假设，在现代研究中经常被用来解释亚里士多德著作中明显不相容的主张或部分的存在，对古代读者来说是陌生的。因此，古代读者阐述相容主义观点，并将Top和APr（以及它们相应的方法）作为一个统一的逻辑系统的一部分来阅读。通过这种方式，古代解释者探索不同的理论选择，这些理论选择与本项目所解决的基本问题直接相关。

Topics (Top) I-VIII and Prior Analytics (APr) I-II are two of Aristotle's logical writings. Both works provide an account of what a deductive argument is and give indications on how to find and build deductive arguments having a given proposition as their conclusion. The methods and the basic structure of deductive arguments described in the two writings are different in several respects. This fact has led modern interpreters to endorse more or less radical theses on the incoherence and incompatibility of Aristotle's theory of deduction in the two aforementioned works. The proposed project aims at analyzing and revising this traditional picture. In particular, the following three specific goals will be pursued: 1) Systematic study of the relation between Top and APr in their entirety: The impression of incompatibility is particularly pronounced by the comparison between Top and APr I 1-22. However, an analysis of APr I 23 ff. and APr II clearly hints at a stronger continuity with Top than APr I 1-26 might suggest initially. A systematic study of the relations between these two writings is not available in the literature and can in itself be considered a significant contribution to Aristotelian scholarship. 2) Discussion of basic theoretical issues: A more general discussion of the theoretical compatibility of the approaches to deductive arguments presented in Top and APr is needed in order to make clear whether there is any deep theoretical reason why the two approaches should be incompatible. 3) Reconstruction of the debate on deductive arguments in Top and APr in antiquity and late antiquity: With reference to the discussion of the general theoretical issue presented in 2), the reconstruction of the debate on this issue in antiquity and late antiquity seems promising, not only from a historical point of view, but also from a theoretical one: the hypothesis of the intellectual development of the author, often used in modern studies to explain the presence of apparently incompatible claims or sections in Aristotle's writings, is foreign to ancient readers. Consequently, ancient readers elaborate compatibilist views and read Top and APr (as well as their corresponding approaches) as parts of a unified logical system. In this way ancient interpreters explore different theoretical options which are of direct relevance for the basic issues tackled by this project.