The Boolean and Aristotelian Standpoint (Logic)

The modern and traditional standpoints are used to determine a statement’s validity given whether the subject term of the statement actually exists. In this essay the modern, or Boolean (Bow-lee-in), and the traditional, or Aristotelian (Air-ist-to-ti-lee-an), standpoints will be compared and discussed. Can the differences in these standpoints actually affect the validity of a statement or does it not really matter? The two standpoints were created to determine just that. Can a statement really be valid if the subject term in question does not actually exist?
The modern, or Boolean, standpoint suggests that universal propositions do not have existential import and these statements do not imply whether the subject term exists or not. In other words, it does not matter if the subject term exists. If the statement is valid but the subject term does not exist the statement is still valid from the Boolean standpoint. An example from text book tells this:

No roses are daises. Does not imply the existence of roses.
All werewolves are monsters. Does not imply the existence of werewolves.
(Hurley, pg. 192)
As you can see, all the statements are either A or E propositions and are therefore all universal. You will also notice that the last statement “All werewolves are monsters” has a subject term that does not actually exist but because it is being evaluated through the Boolean standpoint it is still considered valid.
The traditional, or Aristotelian, standpoint suggests that if the universal proposition’s subject term does exist, the proposition has an existential import. In the Aristotelian standpoint it does matter if the subject term truly exists or not; unlike the Boolean standpoint. The statement could be valid but if the subject term does not exist the statement is invalid through the Aristotelian standpoint. So the statement’s validity does rely on whether the subject term in question exists or not. An example from the text book demonstrates these findings.
All pheasants are birds. Implies the existence of pheasants.
No pine trees are maples. Implies the existence of pine trees.
All satyrs are vile creatures. Does not imply the existence of satyrs.
(Hurley pg. 191)
As you can see again in the example, all the statements are A or E statements making them universal. In the last statement “All satyrs are vile creatures” the subject term “satyrs” is something that does not exist making the statement invalid through the Aristotelian standpoint. If the statement was being evaluated only through the Boolean standpoint it would be considered valid.
These two standpoints only differ with universal, or A and E, propositions. These two standpoints are identical when used with particular, of I and O, propositions. Particular propositions make a positive assertion to the existence of the subject term. If you take the example “Some roses are flowers,” an I proposition, the statement makes the assertion that at least one rose exists and it is a flower. Also an example of both standpoints “Some balloons are not red,” an O proposition, makes the assertion that at least one balloon exists and that balloon is not red. When looking at both standpoints the word “some” obviously implies existence.
In short, if the Aristotelian standpoint is taken universal propositions convey evidence of existence. If the Boolean standpoint is taken evidence of existence is ignored. These two standpoints differ in whether evidence is accounted for or ignored which determines the validity of the given statement.

Works Cited
Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic; Thomson Learning, Inc. © 2006