The Problem of Modal Upgrading in Aristotle’s Apodictic Syllogistic

This is another contribution to the unending controversy over two Barbaras. My approach problem hopefully quite new: I wish view issue through prism of modal upgrading. Modal upgrading occurs when a subject term that has only been predicated assertorically in premises apodictically either: i) conclusion given syllogism, or; ii) some proposition derived from either syllogism alone or combination with other propositions do not refer proposition’s term. call after it upgraded proposition.
 When proposition, obviously different predicate being than was premises. Aristotle endorses this kind upgrading; effectively what happens any valid mixed minor premise apodictic (e.g., Barbara LXL).
 In cases but still follows alone. these same as premises, although quantity are (one universal, particular). rejects and takes its occurrence sufficient deny validity XLL).
 will describe third type where both remains premise, e.g., “All C B” necessarily B”. turn out alone, at least, syllogistically too reason for denying which consequence. show LXL entails should be rejected reason.
 Armed notion want attack Barbaras Aristotle’s syllogistic. himself major necessary assertoric, thereby endorsing first upgrading, assertoric on grounds leads second Theophrastus peioram rule can strong weakest premise. Łukasiewicz argue lead unacceptable taken invalid reason. Hence, agree about Barbaras; however, endorse because think negative syllogisms generally avoid mostly correct.