What have been historically the various interpretations given to Aristotle's notion of validity implicit in his syllogistic? Here is one authoritative translation of the relevant text: A syllogism is discourse in which, certain things being stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so. I mean by the last phrase that they produce the consequence, and by this, that no further term is required from without in order to make the consequence necessary. - Aristotle, Prior Analytics I.2, 24b18–20 https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8pra/book2.html And here is one apt expression of what seems the prevailing interpretation today: In logic, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. - Wikipedia, Validity (logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic) And here is a different formulation which seems equivalent to the one provided by Wikipedia: This corresponds to a modern notion of logical consequence: X results of necessity from Y and Z if it would be impossible for X to be false when Y and Z are true. We could therefore take this to be a general definition of “valid argument”. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Aristotle's Logic https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#SubLogSyl The SEP link also offers what it describes as a "*thorough explanation of what a deduction is*". However, given the very long history of interest in Aristotle's logic since he wrote the Prior Analytics, and the insatiable inventiveness of the human mind, I would expect different thinkers to have had substantially different interpretations of it. Is there any survey, inventory of them available?

Read another response about Logic, Philosophers