What do you think?
Rate this book
Prior Analytics
"This volume is an impressive tour de force. It is state-of-the-art Aristotle: it employs the most recent philological, philosophical, and logical advances which since the 1970’s at least have rendered previous translations and commentaries obsolete. The translation is the first to take account of the recent epistemically orientated natural-deduction approach, which restores Aristotle’s reputation as a consummate logician and reveals much more of Aristotle’s method than previous approaches. Every page of Robin Smith’s commentary shows extensive learning, taste, imagination, and skill. . . . An important and lasting contribution, not only to Aristotle scholarship and to the history of logic, but also to the history of philosophy itself." --John Corcoran, SUNY Buffalo
296 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 351
21 people are currently reading
566 people want to read
About the author
Aristotle
4,338 books5,558 followersAristotle (Greek: Αριστοτέλης; 384–322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
January 29, 2022
Prior to reading this treatise by Aristotle, I thought that the man’s *other* treatises were complex.
The Prior Analytics is a study of the art of developing a syllogism. That concept, from the realm of deductive reasoning, will be familiar to anyone who has taken a logic class, and indeed is something that you may have been exposed to in a freshman English class at your college or university. The concept of the syllogism, as it is usually taught in contemporary times, generally involves three things:
• A major premise - a broad, all-encompassing statement that is held to be always true;
• A minor premise - a more specific statement, all of the elements of which are contained within the major premise; and
• A conclusion that should follow logically from the premises.
A well-known example of the syllogism, one that you may have heard back at university, is
• "All human beings are mortal." (major premise)
• "Socrates is a human being." (minor premise)
• "Therefore, Socrates is mortal." (conclusion)
All of which seems pretty straightforward – until one finds that in the Prior Analytics, Aristotle is interested in discussing syllogisms with a lot more moving parts than that.
Throughout the Prior Analytics, Aristotle is interested in seeing how the elements of a potential syllogism can or cannot be logically related to one another, as when he writes that “if it is not possible that A should belong to any B, but B may belong to some of the C’s, it is necessary that A should not belong to some of the C’s. For if A belongs to all C, but cannot belong to any B, neither can B belong to any A.”
You get the idea. It can help to take notes, and to try out applications of these principles.
I found that I got more out of the Prior Analytics when Aristotle offered specific examples in support of his principles – something that I have often found when reading the philosopher’s work, as when he states that “A term which is repeated in the premises ought to be joined to the first extreme, not to the middle”, and then offers this example:
I mean for example that if a syllogism should be made proving that there is knowledge of justice, that it is good, the expression “that it is good”…should be joined to the first term. Let A stand for “knowledge that it is good,” B for good, C for justice. It is true to predicate A of B. For of the good, there is knowledge that it is good. It is also true to predicate C of B. For justice is identical with a good….But if the expression “that it is good” were added to B, the conclusion will not follow: for A will be true of B, but B will not be true of C.
Where Aristotle does not provide specifics of that kind, the relations that he sets forth between and among various premises are more difficult to understand.
It can also take some time getting used to the terms that Aristotle likes to use to set forth his ideas, as when he writes that “Demonstration per impossibile differs from ostensive proof in that it posits what it wishes to refute by reduction to a statement admitted to be false; whereas ostensive proof starts from admitted positions.” The term “demonstration per impossibile can be related to the concept of reductio ad absurdum - showing, by tracing out the logical consequences of a premise, that said premise would inevitably lead to an absurd or self-contradictory conclusion - and “ostensive proof” is simply proving by showing examples. It was a similar sort of learning experience, for me, when Aristotle wrote earlier in the Prior Analytics about what happens “whenever the major premise is universal, but assertoric, not problematic”. The term “assertoric,” it turns out, simply means that one is asserting that something is true – e.g., “Baltimore is larger than Gaithersburg” – whereas “problematic” refers to setting forth the problem of whether something could be true, so that an attempt can be made to solve the problem– e.g., “Gaithersburg could have a more fully functional infrastructure than Baltimore.”
A first reading of any Aristotlelian treatise generally leaves me feeling as though I just went 15 rounds with a boxing champion; I usually feel pretty beat-up afterward. But I appreciate the chance to struggle with the ideas being set forth by one of the greatest minds in all of human history. And I know that I will want to return to the Prior Analytics someday – before I go on to its no-doubt-just-as-challenging sequel, the Posterior Analytics.
The Prior Analytics is a study of the art of developing a syllogism. That concept, from the realm of deductive reasoning, will be familiar to anyone who has taken a logic class, and indeed is something that you may have been exposed to in a freshman English class at your college or university. The concept of the syllogism, as it is usually taught in contemporary times, generally involves three things:
• A major premise - a broad, all-encompassing statement that is held to be always true;
• A minor premise - a more specific statement, all of the elements of which are contained within the major premise; and
• A conclusion that should follow logically from the premises.
A well-known example of the syllogism, one that you may have heard back at university, is
• "All human beings are mortal." (major premise)
• "Socrates is a human being." (minor premise)
• "Therefore, Socrates is mortal." (conclusion)
All of which seems pretty straightforward – until one finds that in the Prior Analytics, Aristotle is interested in discussing syllogisms with a lot more moving parts than that.
Throughout the Prior Analytics, Aristotle is interested in seeing how the elements of a potential syllogism can or cannot be logically related to one another, as when he writes that “if it is not possible that A should belong to any B, but B may belong to some of the C’s, it is necessary that A should not belong to some of the C’s. For if A belongs to all C, but cannot belong to any B, neither can B belong to any A.”
You get the idea. It can help to take notes, and to try out applications of these principles.
I found that I got more out of the Prior Analytics when Aristotle offered specific examples in support of his principles – something that I have often found when reading the philosopher’s work, as when he states that “A term which is repeated in the premises ought to be joined to the first extreme, not to the middle”, and then offers this example:
I mean for example that if a syllogism should be made proving that there is knowledge of justice, that it is good, the expression “that it is good”…should be joined to the first term. Let A stand for “knowledge that it is good,” B for good, C for justice. It is true to predicate A of B. For of the good, there is knowledge that it is good. It is also true to predicate C of B. For justice is identical with a good….But if the expression “that it is good” were added to B, the conclusion will not follow: for A will be true of B, but B will not be true of C.
Where Aristotle does not provide specifics of that kind, the relations that he sets forth between and among various premises are more difficult to understand.
It can also take some time getting used to the terms that Aristotle likes to use to set forth his ideas, as when he writes that “Demonstration per impossibile differs from ostensive proof in that it posits what it wishes to refute by reduction to a statement admitted to be false; whereas ostensive proof starts from admitted positions.” The term “demonstration per impossibile can be related to the concept of reductio ad absurdum - showing, by tracing out the logical consequences of a premise, that said premise would inevitably lead to an absurd or self-contradictory conclusion - and “ostensive proof” is simply proving by showing examples. It was a similar sort of learning experience, for me, when Aristotle wrote earlier in the Prior Analytics about what happens “whenever the major premise is universal, but assertoric, not problematic”. The term “assertoric,” it turns out, simply means that one is asserting that something is true – e.g., “Baltimore is larger than Gaithersburg” – whereas “problematic” refers to setting forth the problem of whether something could be true, so that an attempt can be made to solve the problem– e.g., “Gaithersburg could have a more fully functional infrastructure than Baltimore.”
A first reading of any Aristotlelian treatise generally leaves me feeling as though I just went 15 rounds with a boxing champion; I usually feel pretty beat-up afterward. But I appreciate the chance to struggle with the ideas being set forth by one of the greatest minds in all of human history. And I know that I will want to return to the Prior Analytics someday – before I go on to its no-doubt-just-as-challenging sequel, the Posterior Analytics.
September 27, 2019
This was an amazing book. I am thoroughly happy with my reading of it.
Essentially, the book details the different forms of logical arguments one can have. The first is through universals, and the following two, the syllogisms in the second and third figures, are inherently weaker, and through particulars. The weakest of all is the second syllogism, which cannot even define a syllogism through two affirmations unless the particular trait is endemic to the characteristic of the third term.
Throughout the book, different forms of arguments and logical methods are discussed and looked at, as references are made to the different forms of logical arguments. You can have a Syllogism, only if one of the figures NECESSARILY proves something, and an Elenchus ONLY if a CONTRADICTION is made within a syllogism.
Petito principiis, reduction ad absurdum, and even induction and abduction are covered. This is not a book for the faint of heart, but those who are truly interested in logic and the art of persuasion and making speeches or debating. Everything in this book is essential for those interested in mathematics as well, since reductio ad absurdums are used by contemporary mathematicians all the time (usually in arguments for efficiency/necessity).
Amazing book, and highly influential. I recommend if just because of the immense influence.
Essentially, the book details the different forms of logical arguments one can have. The first is through universals, and the following two, the syllogisms in the second and third figures, are inherently weaker, and through particulars. The weakest of all is the second syllogism, which cannot even define a syllogism through two affirmations unless the particular trait is endemic to the characteristic of the third term.
Throughout the book, different forms of arguments and logical methods are discussed and looked at, as references are made to the different forms of logical arguments. You can have a Syllogism, only if one of the figures NECESSARILY proves something, and an Elenchus ONLY if a CONTRADICTION is made within a syllogism.
Petito principiis, reduction ad absurdum, and even induction and abduction are covered. This is not a book for the faint of heart, but those who are truly interested in logic and the art of persuasion and making speeches or debating. Everything in this book is essential for those interested in mathematics as well, since reductio ad absurdums are used by contemporary mathematicians all the time (usually in arguments for efficiency/necessity).
Amazing book, and highly influential. I recommend if just because of the immense influence.
September 1, 2016
I feel like it's difficult to give this book a proper rating, or even an actual review. It's a swell introduction to Aristotelian syllogism and predicate logic. Following the arguments does get tedious after the first fifteen or so pages. But every so often as Aristotle works his way through the implications you come across some brilliant insight that leaves you (me, at the very least) with a tingling feeling spreading throughout your body and compelling you to read more. I'm glad I read it, but I wouldn't do it again.
February 6, 2021
There are more lucid introductions to syllogistic logic, but this one will always be the first.
November 17, 2022
this book is a war crime
July 28, 2011
.....Ugh...finally. This is the most difficult text I've ever read in my life. It's more like practicing theoretical math problems of language than :"reading". I'll let it slide at three stars because It's groundbreaking stuff.
December 7, 2008
Aristotle invents the science of Formal Logic.
March 31, 2022
"Se A é predicado de todo B e B é predicado de algum C..."
Sinto que vou ter pesadelos com esse enunciado depois de ler o mesmo tantas vezes.
Silogismos sendo apresentados quase sempre de forma genérica (A,B,C etc) e as vezes múltiplos em um mesmo parágrafo, sem nenhuma estrutura esquemática é realmente uma dor de cabeça mas é Aristóteles, resta ler, sofrer e continuar a ler.
Sinto que vou ter pesadelos com esse enunciado depois de ler o mesmo tantas vezes.
Silogismos sendo apresentados quase sempre de forma genérica (A,B,C etc) e as vezes múltiplos em um mesmo parágrafo, sem nenhuma estrutura esquemática é realmente uma dor de cabeça mas é Aristóteles, resta ler, sofrer e continuar a ler.
May 7, 2023
It's all here. The basis for Aristolian logic straight from the source. Tough reading though. I would recommend reading a good textbook on Aristotlian logic before reading this text to prepare for the more quickly moving and harder to understand original. I read Dr. Clark's book entitled Logic, and found it useful to this end.
January 8, 2025
Läsning 2: Annan översättning. Inga större svårigheter.
Läsning 1: Analysschemat är så renodlat att det tidvis är svårförståeligt, framförallt i bok 1. Exemplen i boken är behjälpliga vad gäller att förstå argumentation som fenomen. Jag är glad att jag har läst den, och skulle nog mellan skål och vägg rekommendera den; framförallt eftersom utgåvan jag läste hade den utmärkta texten ”om definitioner” med. Detta sagt är det en djävulskt trög text.
Läsning 1: Analysschemat är så renodlat att det tidvis är svårförståeligt, framförallt i bok 1. Exemplen i boken är behjälpliga vad gäller att förstå argumentation som fenomen. Jag är glad att jag har läst den, och skulle nog mellan skål och vägg rekommendera den; framförallt eftersom utgåvan jag läste hade den utmärkta texten ”om definitioner” med. Detta sagt är det en djävulskt trög text.
February 22, 2021
This book gets 4.5 stars because I’m very thankful Aristotle did such complicated work so I could learn simple introductory logic.
August 14, 2025
Prior Analytics (Aristotle — read in 2015) was less a book and more an intellectual boot camp. If Plato tangles you in dialogue, Aristotle here gives you the raw blueprints of logical thought — no frills, no narrative cushions, just the skeleton of reasoning itself. This is the birthplace of syllogistic logic, the “if A, then B” machinery that underpins centuries of philosophy, mathematics, and science.
Calling it “hard philosophy” almost feels too casual. Reading it is like deciphering a set of Euclidean postulates, except the shapes are arguments and the proofs are mental gymnastics. Aristotle’s method is ruthlessly systematic: he defines, categorises, and exhaustively works through every possible form of valid and invalid inference. He’s not trying to inspire; he’s building a logical fortress stone by stone, and you’re the apprentice mason expected to keep up.
In 2015, tackling Prior Analytics was an act of deliberate self-punishment. Each page demanded line-by-line attention, with diagrams and scratch paper at hand. The text’s power is in its precision — there’s no wasted word — but that also means there’s no mercy for the inattentive.
What makes it “tough” isn’t just the abstractness, but the relentless requirement that you think like Aristotle: rigorously, sequentially, without skipping steps.
By the time you’re done, you see syllogisms in arguments, conversations, even headlines — as though the world itself had been quietly running on Aristotle’s operating system all along.
Calling it “hard philosophy” almost feels too casual. Reading it is like deciphering a set of Euclidean postulates, except the shapes are arguments and the proofs are mental gymnastics. Aristotle’s method is ruthlessly systematic: he defines, categorises, and exhaustively works through every possible form of valid and invalid inference. He’s not trying to inspire; he’s building a logical fortress stone by stone, and you’re the apprentice mason expected to keep up.
In 2015, tackling Prior Analytics was an act of deliberate self-punishment. Each page demanded line-by-line attention, with diagrams and scratch paper at hand. The text’s power is in its precision — there’s no wasted word — but that also means there’s no mercy for the inattentive.
What makes it “tough” isn’t just the abstractness, but the relentless requirement that you think like Aristotle: rigorously, sequentially, without skipping steps.
By the time you’re done, you see syllogisms in arguments, conversations, even headlines — as though the world itself had been quietly running on Aristotle’s operating system all along.
Read
June 3, 2024I started this book last year at some point and got half-way. Then I took a long break. Mostly because it is very tedious to read. Aristotle basically goes through every single possible form of a syllogism you could come up and addresses which ones are valid and invalid. But when you are already familiar with logic, this seems pretty over the top. I respect that this is like the first work really laying down all the rules of logic but there's much simpler ways now to learn logic.
This book definitely gave me a greater appreciation for Set Theory as it gives a much more hands on approach to applying logic and is much easier for me to follow.
Some of his examples were funny though. Like "The sign of having courage is big muscles. A lion has big muscles; therefore, the lion is courageous." That one was fun. But most of them are about swans being white and men not being horses.
This book definitely gave me a greater appreciation for Set Theory as it gives a much more hands on approach to applying logic and is much easier for me to follow.
Some of his examples were funny though. Like "The sign of having courage is big muscles. A lion has big muscles; therefore, the lion is courageous." That one was fun. But most of them are about swans being white and men not being horses.
June 24, 2023
I wouldn't recommend reading this book without first having basic understanding of formal logic and its figures of deduction. without having a previous knowledge and general guidelines of deductive logic i personally wouldn't have gotten most of what Aristotle was trying to explain. For he have a peculiar way of writing that is both compact/short in its meaning and lengthy in its paragraphs, which may raise unclarity in the sentences, and cause weariness to anyone who isn't aware of the outlines of deductive logic in the case of having to reread the paragraphs again and again.
October 19, 2025
An extremely tedious breakdown of what was to blossom into first order logic. While miraculous in its own right, to throughly engage you're going to need to track each idea with a pen and notebook. You're better off learning the rules of syllogisms and their fallacies independently, but it is still an incredibly detailed and dense analysis that forms such a foundational basis of logic. It's just extremely dull, albeit its existence fascinating and awe-inspiring.
Read
February 11, 2025This book sets the foundation for and invents formal logic. I am--however--glad they invented symbolic logic in the 19th century because in Prior Analytics Aristotle is going in great lengths to express arguments in ordinary language that could so easily be expressed in math.
April 27, 2022
So true!
July 7, 2023
This took a lot of effort and I need to read again to consolidate my understanding. It definitely helps to read secondary literature to understand what is going on. But it was fun in a way to read such a foundational book in this history of logic.
August 25, 2024
Trabajazo de Aristóteles que fundó desde cero la lógica. Texto denso, árido y algo duro pero de gran valor e influencia.
Read
May 23, 2025Summer research
July 26, 2020
I give this 4 stars out of reverence to the scientific significant this text had over several centuries. Much of modern day logic is built upon these foundations. However, this is not a fun read. Beyond being a challenging read (particularly the translation I read), it is a very granular, painstaking progression through every form of syllogism that can be constructed. The big picture lessons are helpful, but the details are unnecessary for most laymen.
The exercise of writing out the syllogism and logically working through them with Aristotle is a worthwhile exercise, and very helpful in understanding the text. I recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a reading companion to this text. Learn the notation developed by Stanford and it will go far in helping you work through the problems in Aristotle’s text. The Stanford resource can be found here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ar...
Overall a rewarding read, but most of the detailed rules on various circumstances of argument will not be of much use to me beyond this text. I do hope, however, that my basic understanding of how Aristotle thinks about logic and how he works through problems will help me better understand his other works, which I plan to read shortly.
The exercise of writing out the syllogism and logically working through them with Aristotle is a worthwhile exercise, and very helpful in understanding the text. I recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a reading companion to this text. Learn the notation developed by Stanford and it will go far in helping you work through the problems in Aristotle’s text. The Stanford resource can be found here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ar...
Overall a rewarding read, but most of the detailed rules on various circumstances of argument will not be of much use to me beyond this text. I do hope, however, that my basic understanding of how Aristotle thinks about logic and how he works through problems will help me better understand his other works, which I plan to read shortly.
February 16, 2021
This is Aristotle's most comprehensive attempt at developing a systematic logical syntax, and his theory of the syllogism. The first formal logician, Aristotle has had an immense impact on logic as a field of study, and Western thought in general.
He also formally gave me a huge headache ploughing through it all. This was a dense, laborious and at times painful read. It's also one of the most awe-inspiring pieces of literature I've come across in my short time studying these great thinkers.
The text definitely could have benefited from some logical and mathematical symbolism. Then again, for those to exist, I guess the whole logic thing first had to be invented. I'll give the Philosopher a pass on this one.
He also formally gave me a huge headache ploughing through it all. This was a dense, laborious and at times painful read. It's also one of the most awe-inspiring pieces of literature I've come across in my short time studying these great thinkers.
The text definitely could have benefited from some logical and mathematical symbolism. Then again, for those to exist, I guess the whole logic thing first had to be invented. I'll give the Philosopher a pass on this one.
July 9, 2017
Aristotel's greatest contribution to knowledge is his creation of logic. The Prior Analytics is a writing on deductive reasoning, known as his syllogistic. Aristotel used a three part as form of argument, first two being the major & minor premises & last part being conclusion. This was the first written publication on logic in known history...
June 1, 2025
Intriguing but it hurt my head and I don't understand it all. Following the reasoning gets quite arduous but worth it in some ways. Necessary logical understandings. As one goodreads reviewer says "I'm glad I read it, but I wouldn't do it again." I amend this to say: I felt smart while reading this, I understood nothing, and I will not read it again.
August 13, 2018
Very dense reading on logic, as Aristotle writes very correctly about propositions, set theory. This book could well be used as a somewhat good one for basic logic, but the absence of mathematical symbology makes it harder and boring to read at times.
July 6, 2019
Truly a foundation of modern logic. I wish my teacher back then in the primary or secondary education made this book as homework.
April 20, 2021
A fourth of this book is useful, the other portion is resisting curling up in a corner and crying because you want to finish it.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews