It seems to be a received view about the relationship of traditional Aristotelian Logic to modern Quantificational Logic that the inferences codified in the old-fashioned syllogisms - All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, etc. - are all, in some sense, subsumed by modern quantificational logic. (I know I have tended to assume this.)
But what about:
P1. All men are mortal.
C. Everything is such that (it is a man ⊃ it is mortal)?
This is a logical inference. It is not of the form 'A therefore A'. It embodies a very clever logical discovery! P1 and C are not the same statement. Talk of 'translating' the former by means of the latter papers over all this.
Related Articles
Modern quantificational logic does not really capture the inferences captured by Traditional Logic, any more than it captures this link between the two. It does capture inferences which, given logical insight, can be seen to parallel those codified by traditional logic, but that is not the same thing.
