“Subjective Proposition” is one of the terms that are introduced in Islamic Logic and used in Islamic Philosophy. In this paper, I investigate the term’s history and show that the subjective Proposition has had many meanings in different times and had been associated with many different kinds of Propositions. This variety and changes in meaning have caused the subjective Proposition to encounter many ambiguities both in Islamic Logic and Islamic Philosophy. In this paper, I have tried to formulate the meanings of the subjective Proposition by Symbolic Logic, and thereby to provide the possibility of assessing the term. In this process, we can have a better device to test the accuracy of the claims on the subjective Proposition and the correctness of its use in Logic and Philosophy.

Aristotle in his logical works, in addition to the statement, introduces the concept of Proposition and defines it based on affirmation and negation in Prior Analytics. There are two issues about Aristotle's view of preposition, i.e., the interpretation of its definition, and its relation to the statement. In this article, first, three interpretations of preposition, including Alexander of Aphrodisias' and classical ones, are discussed and criticized. And because Aristotle points to the relation between contradiction and Proposition, first, the definition of contradiction from Aristotle's point of view and, then, its relation to Proposition are discussed. Finally, my interpretation of Proposition is explained: Proposition is a statement which its relation with contradiction is considered and the attention to this relation leads to the acceptation of the rule of contradiction which is the foundation of each deduction. The linguistics meaning of Proposition is compatible with this interpretation: Proposition is to propose one side of contradiction, and because of this, the dialectical Proposition has two forms: question form the answerer and its replay as a premise in dialectical deduction.

Content interpretation is a cognitive ability which is mostly concerned with understanding the intention of the person who has created or narrated the content. Narrator is also important since his/ her specific intention, which is inevitable in media like a social network, may change the reality of a created content. Here, the focal point is a sort of transformation with the aim of yielding the class of a message behind the content. In this paper, we propose a rule-based framework for interpreting contents in a social network that has the ability to perform such a transformation through using some generic rules with Propositions at high Abstraction level. The reason for selecting Abstract Propositions is their ability in covering wide range of facts occurring in the real world situation. Our suggested framework is in reality able to determine the class of a message indicating the possible intention of either a content’s creator or its narrator, such as whether a narrator is seeking honesty/justice toward the others, is after respect for the people, cares for compassion/ mercy, emphasizes a significance of knowing/ thinking in life, or is after self-upgradation to conduct a healthy life. These classes of message are determined according to both philosophical and psychological aspects which do exist behind the cognitive, emotional and ethical faculties in human being. Results of some experiments show that the generic rules proposed in this paper, which are structured on the ground of Abstract Propositions, have enough ability to respond successfully to the issue of interpretation in a social network with the characteristics already mentioned. Also, these results approve the fact that such an Abstraction is able enough to handle the possible facts hidden in the contents showing up in social network.

In his various works, Ibn Sina has referred to different meanings of "All J is B", which his followers have called "ḥaqīqī" and "khārijī" Propositions. Ibn Sina's examples for "khārijī Proposition" are sometimes only related to the present time, sometimes related to past and present times, and his followers have extended these meanings to all three tenses: past, present, and future. To distinguish these three meanings, which have arranged from specific to general, I call them "specific," "intermediate," and "general" khārijī Propositions. In this article, I show that for each meaning of khārijī Proposition, its relation to a more general meaning of khārijī is similar to its relation to ḥaqīqī Propositions, in that mixed khārijī-khārijī syllogisms (mixed of two kinds of khārijīs) have exactly the same rules as mixed khārijī-ḥaqīqī syllogisms.

In this paper, we present an example in which the sum of two maximal Abstract monotone operators is maximal. Also, we shall show that the necessary condition for Rockafellar's surjectivity which was obtained in ([19], Theorem 4.3) can be sufficient.