Skip to main content

The Port-Royal Logic's Theory of Argument

Abstract

This is a critical examination of Antoine Arnauld's Logic or the Art of Thinking (1662), commonly known as the Port-Royal Logic. Rather than reading this work from the viewpoint of post-Fregean formal logic or the viewpoint of seventeenth-century intellectual history, I approach it with the aim of exploring its relationship to that contemporary field which may be labeled informal logic and/or argumentation theory. It turns out that the Port-Royal Logic is a precursor of this current field, or conversely, that this field may be said to be in the same tradition.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  1. Arnauld, A. and P. Nicole: 1717, Logic; or, the Art of Thinking, G. Ozell (trans.), William Taylor, London.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnauld, A. and P. Nicole: 1850, Logic, or the Art of Thinking: Being the Port-Royal Logic, T. S. Baynes (trans.), Sutherland and Knox, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arnauld, A. and P. Nicole: 1964, The Art of Thinking: Port-Royal Logic, J. Dickoff and P. James (trans.), Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arnauld, A. and P. Nicole: 1965, La Logique ou l'Art de Penser, critical edition by P. Clair and F. Girbal, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arnauld, A. and P. Nicole: 1996, Logic or the Art of Thinking, J. V. Buroker (trans.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baynes, T. S. (ed. and trans.): 1850, Logic, or the Art of Thinking: Being the Port-Royal Logic, Sutherland and Knox, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bochenski, I. M.: 1961, A History of Formal Logic, I. Thomas (trans.), University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Buchdahl, G.: 1970a, ‘Gravity and Intelligibility: Newton to Kant’, in R. E. Butts and J. W. Davis (eds.), The Methodological Heritage of Newton, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 74–102.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Buchdahl, G.: 1970b, ‘History of Science and Criteria of Choice’, in R. H. Stuewer (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. V, Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 204–230.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Buchdahl, G.: 1973, ‘Explanation and Gravity’, in M. Teich and R. Young (eds.), Changing Perspectives in the History of Science, Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 167–203.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Buroker, J. V.: 1993, ‘The Port-Royal Semantics of Terms’, Synthese 96, 455–475.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Buroker, J. V.: 1994, ‘Judgment and Predication in the Port-Royal Logic’, in E. J. Kremer (ed.), The Great Arnauld and Some of His Philosophical Correspondents, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Buroker, J. V. (ed. and trans.): 1996, Logic or the Art of Thinking, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Clair, P. and F. Girbal (eds.): 1965, La Logique ou l'Art de Penser, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dickoff, J. and P. James (eds. and trans.): 1964, The Art of Thinking: Port-Royal Logic, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Eemeren, F. H. van et al.: 1996, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Finocchiaro, M. A.: 1980, Galileo and the Art of Reasoning, Reidel, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Finocchiaro, M. A.: 1984, ‘Informal Logic and the Theory of Reasoning’, Informal Logic 6(2), 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Finocchiaro, M. A.: 1987, ‘An Historical Approach to the Study of Argumentation’, in F. H. van Eemeren et al. (ed.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline: Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, pp. 81–91.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher, A.: 1988, The Logic of Real Arguments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Freeman, J. B.: 1991, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments, Foris Publications, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Galilei, G.: 1632, Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi..., in A. Favaro et al. (ed.), Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, vol. 7, National Edition, Barbera, Florence, 1890–1909.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Galilei, G.: 1967, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, S. Drake (trans. and ed.), 2nd revised edition, University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hacking, I.: 1975, The Emergence of Probability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London. Reprinted: Vale, Newport News, VA., 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hempel, C.: 1965, Aspects of the Logic of Explanation, Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jardine, N.: 1976, ‘Galileo's Road to Truth and Demonstrative Regress’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 7, 277–318.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Johnson, R. H. and J. A. Blair: 1985, ‘Informal Logic: The Past Five Years 1978–1983’, American Philosophical Quarterly 22, 181–196.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Johnson, R. H. and J. A. Blair (eds.): 1994, New Essays in Informal Logic, Informal Logic Publications, Windsor, Ontario.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mates, B.: 1972, Elementary Logic, second edition, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mancosu, P.: 1996, Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Practice in the Seventeenth Century, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Naylor, R.: 1990, ‘Galileo's Method of Analysis and Synthesis’, Isis 81, 695–707.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ozell, J. (ed. and trans.): 1717, Logic; or, the Art of Thinking, William Taylor, London.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Salmon, W. C.: 1984, Logic, third edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Seriven, M.: 1976, Reasoning, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Walton, D. N.: 1989, Informal Logic, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Finocchiaro, M.A. The Port-Royal Logic's Theory of Argument. Argumentation 11, 393–410 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007756105432

Download citation

  • Reasoning
  • argumentation theory
  • informal logic
  • Port-Royal Logic