Comparison between traditional square of

opposition (Aristotelian) vs. Modern

square of opposition (Boole).
Beza Getachew - [2019]
This assignment gives insight to
the similarities and differences
between Modern and
Traditional square of
Unity University
Opposition.
Gerji

ID-UU58044R

5/5/2019
Comparison between traditional square of opposition (Aristotelian) vs. Modern
square of opposition (Boole).

 The Aristotelian standpoint recognizes that about existing things have

existential import. For such propositions the becomes
applicable.

 Like the the is an

arrangement of lines that illustrates logically necessary relations among the four kinds of
categorical propositions.
 However, because the Aristotelian standpoint recognizes the additional factor of existential
Import, the supports more inferences than does the .
It is represented as follows:

1|Page
Fig 1. Traditional square of opposition.(Aristotelian)

Fig 2. Modern square of opposition.(Boole)

 But the rest is there by implication For example, there is enough to show that I and O are
subcontraries: they cannot both be false. For suppose that I is false. Then its contradictory, E, is
true. So E’s contrary, A, is false. So A’s contradictory, O, is true. This refutes the possibility that I
and O are both false, and thus fills in the bottom relation of subcontraries. Subalternation also
follows. Suppose that the A form is true. Then its contrary E form must be false. But then the E
form‘s contradictory, I, must be true. Thus if the A form is true, so must be the I form. A parallel
argument establishes subalternation from E to O as well. The result is SQUARE.

2|Page
The four relations in the traditional square of opposition may be characterized as follows:

Contradictory = opposite truth value

Contrary = at least one is false (not both true)
Subcontrary = at least one is true (not both false)
Subalternation = truth flows downward, falsity flows upward.

 The traditional square of opposition gives much greater than the Modern square of opposition
in terms of computing truth value but it’s not full proof. We can’t necessarily know everything.
 For boole (Modern Square of opposition) , any claim that begins with Universal and goes to
claiming something is true in particular always commits an Existential fallacy. Whereas, for
Aristotle (Tradition square of opposition), Universal is acceptable as long as the subject and
predicate actually exist otherwise, like Boole, the inference will make existential fallacy.
Arguments that pass the test for Aristotle but not Boole are known as Conditional Valid.
Whereas arguments that pass Boole’s Existential fallacy are known as Unconditional Valid.

 Accordingly, the existential fallacy is committed from the Aristotelian standpoint when and
only when contrary, subcontrary, and subalternation are used (in an otherwise correct way) to
draw a conclusion from a premise about things that do not exist. All such inferences begin with
a universal proposition, which has no existential import, and they conclude with a particular
proposition, which has existential import. The existential fallacy is never committed in
connection with the contradictory relation, nor is it committed in connection with conversion,
obversion, or contraposition, all of which hold regardless of existence. The following inferences
commit the existential fallacy from the Aristotelian standpoint:

All witches who fly on broomsticks are fearless women.

Therefore, some witches who fly on broomsticks are fearless women.

No wizards with magical powers are malevolent beings.

Therefore, it is false that all wizards with magical powers are malevolent beings.

The first depends on an otherwise correct use of the subalternation relation, and the second on an
otherwise correct use of the contrary relation. If flying witches and magical wizards actually existed,
both arguments would be valid. But since they do not exist, both arguments are invalid and commit the
existential fallacy. In regard to the second example, recall that the conclusion, which asserts that an A
proposition is false, is actually a particular proposition. Thus, this example, like the first one, proceeds
from the universal to the particular.

3|Page
The phrase conditionally valid applies to an inference after the Aristotelian standpoint has been
adopted and we are not certain if the subject term of the premise denotes actually existing things. For
example, the following inference is conditionally valid:

All students who failed the exam are students on probation.

Therefore, some students who failed the exam are students on probation.

The validity of this inference rests on whether there were in fact any students who failed the exam. The
inference is either valid or invalid, but we lack sufficient information about the meaning of the premise
to tell which the case is. Once it becomes known that there are indeed some students who failed the
exam, we can assert that the inference is valid from the Aristotelian standpoint. But if there are
no students who failed the exam, the inference is invalid because it commits the existential fallacy.
Similarly, all inference forms that depend on valid applications of contrary, subcontrary, and
subalternation are conditionally valid because we do not know if the letters in the propositions denote
actually existing things. For example, the following inference form, which depends on the contrary
relation, is conditionally valid:

All A are B.
Therefore, it is false that no A are B.

If “dogs” and “animals” are substituted in place of A and B, respectively, the resulting inference is valid.
But if “unicorns” and “animals” are substituted, the resulting inference is invalid because it commits the
existential fallacy.

4|Page
 Types of relations among the A, E, O, I
1. The contradictory relation is the same as that found in the modern square. Thus, if certain A
proposition is given as true, the corresponding O proposition is false, and vice versa. The same
relation holds between the E and I propositions.
2. In contrary relation, if a certain A proposition is given as true, the corresponding E proposition is
false (because at least one must be false), and if an E proposition is given as true, the corresponding A
proposition is false. But if an A proposition is given as false, the corresponding E proposition could
be either true or false without violating the “at least one is false” rule. In this case, the E
proposition has logically undetermined truth value. Similarly, if an E proposition is given as
false, the corresponding A proposition has logically undetermined truth value. Propositions are
contrary when they cannot both be true.
e.g., True- A-Proposition: "all giraffes have long necks".
E- Proposition: -- "no giraffes have long necks." is always false.
While they cannot both be true, they can both be false, as with the examples of:
False--A-Proposition - "all planets are gas giants" and
False--E-Proposition-"no planets are gas giants."
3. The subcontrary relation, If I proposition is given as false, the corresponding O proposition is
true (because at least one must be true), and if an O proposition is given as false, the
corresponding I proposition is true. But if either an I or an O proposition is given as true, then
the corresponding proposition could be either true or false without violating the “at least one is
true” rule. Thus, in this case the corresponding proposition would have logically undetermined
truth value.
E.g.1. False I-Proposition – “Some cats are dogs “
Corresponding O proposition “Some cats are not dogs” is true

Thus, the I and O propositions cannot both be false, but they can both be true.
E.g.2. “Some animals are cats” and “Some animals are not cats” are both true.

4. The subalternation relation is represented by two arrows: a downward arrow marked with the
letter T (true), and an upward arrow marked with an F (false). These arrows can be thought of as
pipelines through which truth values “flow.” The downward arrow “transmits” only truth, and
the upward arrow only falsity. Thus, if an A proposition is given as true, the corresponding I
proposition is true also, and if an I proposition is given as false, the corresponding A proposition
is false. But if an A proposition is given as false, this truth value cannot be transmitted
downward, so the corresponding I proposition will have logically undetermined truth value.
Conversely, if an I proposition is given as true, this truth value cannot be transmitted upward, so
the corresponding A proposition will have logically undetermined truth value. Analogous
reasoning prevails for the subalternation relation between the E and O propositions. Two
propositions are said to stand in the relation of subalternation when the truth of the first ("the
superaltern") implies the truth of the second ("the subaltern"), but not conversely. In traditional
logic, the truth of an A or E proposition implies the truth of the corresponding I or O
proposition, respectively. Consequently, the falsity of an I or O proposition implies the falsity of
the corresponding A or E proposition, respectively. However, the truth of a particular
proposition does not imply the truth of the corresponding universal proposition, nor does the
falsity of an universal proposition carry downwards to the respective particular propositions.

E.g. 1 the truth of the A- proposition "all plastics are synthetic," implies the truth of the I-proposition
"some plastics are synthetic."

5|Page
E.g.2. the truth of the O- proposition "some cars are not American-made products" does not imply the
truth of the E proposition "no cars are American-made products. “. The truth value of such is
undetermined.

In some cases, if the argument ends up in a conclusion that is logically undetermined, then that is
invalid.
e.g.

Some cats are animals.

Therefore, some cats are not animals.

Here the premise and conclusion are linked by the subcontrary relation. According to that relation, if
the premise is assumed true, the conclusion has logically undetermined truth value, and so the
inference is invalid. It commits the formal fallacy of illicit subcontrary.

6|Page