Introduction to Syllogistic Logic

Syllogistic Logic is a traditional form of logic that allows the use of quantifiers. It is
older and more versatile than binary logic, which doesnt have quantifiers.
To understand syllogistic logic, there are certain terms that need to be understood:
Syllogism a logical argument that involves two premises and a conclusion. A valid
syllogism is one in which the conclusion follows from the two premises.
Premise a logical statement that is assumed to be true, thereby not requiring proof.
(This does not mean that a given premise is necessarily true. We are just assuming
that is it true for the sake of the argument.) The first premise in a given syllogism is
called the Major Premise and the second is called the Minor Premise.
Conclusion a logical statement thats truth value is based on the syllogism. If both
premises of the syllogism are true and the syllogism is of a valid form, the conclusion
must be true. (If the syllogism is of a valid form, but it is known that the conclusion is
false, then it must be the case that either or both premises are false.)
Subject the first noun in a logical statement. The logical statement is saying
something about the subject. The subject noun of the conclusion is designated S.
Predicate the second noun in a logical statement. The logical statement describes
the subject in terms of its relationship to the predicate. The predicate noun of the
conclusion is designated P.
Middle Term the noun that links the major and minor premise. The middle term
does not appear in the conclusion and it may be either the subject or the predicate as it
appears in each premise. The middle term is designated M.
Quantifier the relationship between the subject and the predicate. There are four
types of quantifiers:
A Universal affirmative (e.g. all are )
E Universal negative (e.g. no are )
I Existential affirmative (e.g. some are )
O Existential negative (e.g. some are not )
Consider the logical statement:
All men are mortal.
The subject is men. The predicate is mortal. The quantifier is A.
Consider the syllogism:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The major premise is All men are mortal. The minor premise is Socrates is a man.
The conclusion is Socrates is mortal. S is Socrates. P is mortal. M is men.

The general form of the above syllogism could therefore be written as:
A(M, P)
A(S, M)
A(S, P)
Medieval philosophers refer to this syllogistic form as Barbara, and it is considered
to be a valid form.
Another valid form is called Dimaris and its general form is laid out below:
I(P, M)
A(M, S)
I(S, P)
An example of Dimaris could be:
Some small birds live on honey.
All birds that live on honey are colourful.
Some colourful birds are small.
In this example, S is colourful birds, P is small birds, M is birds that live on
honey.
This general form is an example of an invalid syllogism:
I(S, M)
I(M, P)
I(S, P)
We can fill it out with an example as follows:
Some students are activists.
Some activists are socialists.
Therefore, some students are socialists.
The conclusion appears to follow from the premises, doesnt it? This is a common
mistake many people make. The invalid form of this syllogism can be more easily
seen in a different example:
Some bachelors are policemen.
Some policemen are married.
Therefore, some bachelors are married.
This syllogism is of the same form, and the premises can easily be accepted, but the
conclusion is obviously false. It can clearly be seen that this is an invalid syllogism. A
syllogism that is invalid is said to be fallacious.

And thats pretty much all there is to know about syllogistic logic. Below are all the
valid forms of syllogism and the names they were given by the medieval
philosophers:
Barbara:

Cesare:

Darapti:*

Bramantip:*

A(M, P)

E(P, M)

A(M, P)

A(P, M)

A(S, M)

A(S, M)

A(M, S)

A(M, S)

A(S, P)

E(S, P)

I(S, P)

I(S, P)

Celarent:

Camestres:

Disamis:

Camenes:

E(M, P)

A(P, M)

I(M, P)

A(P, M)

A(S, M)

E(S, M)

A(M, S)

E(M, S)

E(S, P)

E(S, P)

I(S, P)

E(S, P)

Darii:

Festino:

Datisi:

Dimaris:

A(M, P)

E(P, M)

A(M, P)

I(P, M)

I(S, M)

I(S, M)

I(M, S)

A(M, S)

I(S, P)

O(S, P)

I(S, P)

I(S, P)

Ferio:

Baroco:

Felapton:*

Fesapo:*

E(M, P)

A(P, M)

E(M, P)

E(P, M)

I(S, M)

O(S, M)

A(M, S)

A(M, S)

O(S, P)

O(S, P)

O(S, P)

O(S, P)

Bocardo:

Fresison:

O(M, P)

E(P, M)

A(M, S)

I(M, S)

O(S, P)

O(S, P)

Ferison:
E(M, P)
I(M, S)
O(S, P)
*Syllogisms marked by the asteric are not necessarily valid. They are subject to the
existential fallacy. Both premises use universal quantifiers and the conclusion uses
an existential quantifier. If the middle term doesnt exist, it is possible for both
premises to be true and the conclusion false, which means that the conclusion doesnt
necessarily follow from the premises.