22Ibid. xi. p. 172, b. 7.
22Ibid. xi. p. 172, b. 7.
His first and most general observation is, that language is the usual medium and instrument through which fallacies are operated.23Names and propositions are of necessity limited in number; but things named or nameable are innumerable; hence it happens inevitably that the same name or the same proposition must have several different meanings. Since we cannot talk of things except by means of their names, the equivocation inseparable from these names is a constant source of false conclusions.24
23Ibid. i. p. 165, a. 5.
23Ibid. i. p. 165, a. 5.
24Ibid. a. 10: τὰ μὲν γὰρ ὀνόματα πεπέρανται καὶ τὸ τῶν λόγων πλῆθος, τὰ δὲ πράγματα τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἄπειρά ἐστιν. ἀναγκαῖον οὖν πλείω τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ τοὔνομα τὸ ἓν σημαίνειν.
24Ibid. a. 10: τὰ μὲν γὰρ ὀνόματα πεπέρανται καὶ τὸ τῶν λόγων πλῆθος, τὰ δὲ πράγματα τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἄπειρά ἐστιν. ἀναγκαῖον οὖν πλείω τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ τοὔνομα τὸ ἓν σημαίνειν.
In dialectical procedure, the Sophist and the litigious debater aim at the accomplishment of five distinguishable ends:— (1) To refute, or obtain the false appearance of refuting, the thesis; (2) To catch, or appear to catch, the opponent in affirmingsomething false or contradictory; (3) Or in affirming something paradoxical; (4) Or in uttering incorrect and ungrammatical speech; (5) Or in tautological repetition. The first of these five ends is what the Sophist most desires; where that cannot be had, then, as secondary purposes, the succeeding four, in the order in which they are enumerated.25
25Soph. El. iii. p. 165, b. 12-22.
25Soph. El. iii. p. 165, b. 12-22.
The syllogism whereby the Sophist appears to refute without really refuting, is either faulty in form, or untrue in matter, or irrelevant to the purpose. The Fallacies that he employs to bring about this deceitful appearance of refutation are various, and may be distributed first under two great divisions:—
I.Fallaciæ Dictionis.
II.Fallaciæ Extra Dictionem.
I. The first division —Fallaciæ Dictionis— includes all those cases wherein, under the same terms or propositions, more than one meaning is expressed. Six heads may be distinguished:—
1. Homonymy (Equivocation): where the double meaning resides in one single term — noun or verb.
2. Amphiboly: where the double meaning resides, not in a single word but, in a combination of words — proposition, phrase, or sentence.
3. Conjunction (hardly distinguishable from that immediately preceding — Amphiboly).
4. Disjunction: where what is affirmed conjunctively is not true disjunctively, or the reverse. (E.g., Five are two and three; but you cannot say, Five are even and odd. The greater is equal and something besides; but you cannot say, The greater is equal.)
5. Accentuation: where the same word differently accentuated has a different meaning.
6.Figura Dictionis: where two words, from being analogous in form, structure, or conjugation, are erroneously supposed to be analogous in meaning also.26
26Ibid. iv. p. 165, b. 23-p. 166, b. 19.
26Ibid. iv. p. 165, b. 23-p. 166, b. 19.
Such are the six heads ofFallaciæ Dictionis— Fallacies or Paralogisms arising from words as such, or something directly appertaining to them.
II. Under the second division — Fallacies or ParalogismsExtra Dictionem— there are seven heads:
1.Fallacia Accidentis.
2.Fallacia a dicto Secundum Quid ad dictum Simpliciter.
3.Ignoratio Elenchi.
4.Fallacia Consequentis
5.Petitio Principii.
6.Non Causa pro Causâ.
7.Fallacia Plurium Interrogationum.27
27Soph. El. v. p. 166, b. 20-27.
27Soph. El. v. p. 166, b. 20-27.
1. The first of these varieties, calledFallacia Accidentis, arises when a syllogism is made to conclude that, because a given predicate may be truly affirmed of a given subject, the same predicate may also be truly affirmed respecting all the accidents of that subject: as when Koriskus is denied to be a man, because he is not Sokrates, who is a man; or is denied to be Koriskus, because he is a man, while a man is not Koriskus.
In the title given to this general head of Fallacy,28we must understand Accident, not in its special logical sense as opposed to Essence, but in a far larger sense, including both Genus when predicated separately from Differentia, and Differentia when predicated separately from Genus; including, in fact, every thing which is distinguishable from the subject in any way, and at the same time predicable of it — every thing except the Definition, which conjoins Genus and Differentia together, and is thus identical and convertible with thedefinitum.
28Ibid. b. 29: οἱ παρὰ τὸ συμβεβηκὸς παραλογισμοί. Every man is an animal; but, because a predicate is true of the subject man, you cannot infer that the same predicate is true of the subject animal. This title comprehends within its range another, which is presently announced as distinct and separate —Fallacia Consequentis.
28Ibid. b. 29: οἱ παρὰ τὸ συμβεβηκὸς παραλογισμοί. Every man is an animal; but, because a predicate is true of the subject man, you cannot infer that the same predicate is true of the subject animal. This title comprehends within its range another, which is presently announced as distinct and separate —Fallacia Consequentis.
2. The second general variety arises when a proposition is affirmed with qualification or limitation in the premisses, but is affirmed without qualification, simply and absolutely, in the conclusion. The Ethiopian is white in his teeth and black in his skin; therefore, he is both white and not white — both white and black. In this example the fallacy is obvious, and can hardly escape any one; but there are many other cases in which the distinction is not so conspicuous, and in which the respondent will hesitate whether he ought to grant or refuse a question simply and absolutely.29One example given by Aristotle deserves notice on its own account:Non-Ens est opinabile, thereforeNon-Ens est; or, again,Ens non est homo, therefore,Ens non est. This is one among Aristotle’s ways of bringing to view what modern logicians describe as the double function of the substantive verb — to serve as copula in predication, and to predicate existence.30He regards the confusion between these twofunctions as an example of the Fallacy now before us — of passinga dicto Secundum Quid ad dictum Simpliciter.31
29Ibid. b. 37, seq. ὅταν τὸ ἐν μέρει λεγόμενον ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰρημένον ληφθῇ — τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον ἐπ’ ἐνίων μὲν παντὶ θεωρῆσαι ῥᾴδιον — ἐπ’ ἐνίων δὲ λανθάνει πολλάκις.
29Ibid. b. 37, seq. ὅταν τὸ ἐν μέρει λεγόμενον ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰρημένον ληφθῇ — τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον ἐπ’ ἐνίων μὲν παντὶ θεωρῆσαι ῥᾴδιον — ἐπ’ ἐνίων δὲ λανθάνει πολλάκις.
30The same double or multiple meaning ofEstis discriminated by Aristotle in the Metaphysica, but in a different way — τὸ ὂν ὡς ἀληθές, καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν ὡς ψεῦδος —Δ.vii. p. 1017, a. 31;E.iv. p. 1027, b. 18-36. Bonitz (ad. Metaphys.Z.iv. p. 310) says:— “Quid quod etiam illudessehuc refert, quo non existentiam significamus, sed predicati cum subjecto conjunctionem.â€� Aristotle is even more precise than modern logicians in analysing the different meanings of τὸ ὄν: he distinguishesfourof them.
30The same double or multiple meaning ofEstis discriminated by Aristotle in the Metaphysica, but in a different way — τὸ ὂν ὡς ἀληθές, καὶ τὸ μὴ ὂν ὡς ψεῦδος —Δ.vii. p. 1017, a. 31;E.iv. p. 1027, b. 18-36. Bonitz (ad. Metaphys.Z.iv. p. 310) says:— “Quid quod etiam illudessehuc refert, quo non existentiam significamus, sed predicati cum subjecto conjunctionem.â€� Aristotle is even more precise than modern logicians in analysing the different meanings of τὸ ὄν: he distinguishesfourof them.
31Soph. El. v. p. 167, a. 1: οἷον εἰ τὸ μὴ ὄν ἐστι δοξαστόν, ὅτι τὸ μὴ ὂν ἔστιν· οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὸν εἶναι τέ τι καὶ εἶναι ἁπλῶς.Compare Metaphys.Z.iv. p. 1030, a. 25, and De Interpretatione, p. 21, a. 25-34: ὥσπερ Ὅμηρός ἐστί τι, οἷον ποιητής· ἆρ’ οὖν καὶ ἔστιν, ἠ οὔ; κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς γὰρ κατηγορεῖται τοῦ Ὁμήρου τὸ ἔστιν· ὅτι γὰρ ποιητής ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ καθ’ αὑτό, κατηγορεῖται κατὰ τοῦ Ὁμήρου τὸ ἔστιν.It is clear from the above passages that Aristotle was thoroughly aware of the logical fact which Hobbes, James Mill, and Mr. John Stuart Mill, have more fully brought out and illustrated, as the confusion between the two distinct functions of the substantive verb. Many excellent remarks on the subject will be found in the ‘System of Logic,’ by Mr. J. S. Mill (Bk. I. ch. iv. s. 1); also in the ‘Analysis of the Human Mind,’ by James Mill, especially in the recent edition of that work, containing the explanatory notes by Mr. J. S. Mill and Dr. Findlater (Vol. I. ch. iv. p. 174, seq.). Mr. J. S. Mill, however, speaks too unreservedly of this confusion as having escaped the notice of Aristotle, and as having been brought to light only by or since Hobbes. He says (in a note on the ‘Analysis,’ p. 183):— “As in the case of many other luminous thoughts, an approach is found to have been made to it by previous thinkers. Hobbes, though he did not reach it, came very close to it; and it was still more distinctly anticipated by Laromiguière, though without any sufficient perception of its value … in the following words:— ‘Quand on dit, l’être est, &c., le motest, ou le verbe, n’exprime pas la même chose que le motêtre, sujet de la définition. Si j’énonce la proposition suivante: Dieu est existant, je ne voudrais pas dire assurément, Dieu existe existant: cela ne ferait pas un sens: de même, si je dis que Virgile est poète, je ne veux pas donner à entendre que Virgile existe. Le verbeestdans la proposition n’exprime dont pas l’existence réelle; il n’exprime qu’un rapport spécial entre le sujet et l’attribut, &c.’â€� The passages above cited from Aristotle show that he had not only enunciated the same truth as Laromiguière, but even illustrated it by the same example (Homer instead of Virgil). I shall in another place state more fully the views of Aristotle respectingExistence.
31Soph. El. v. p. 167, a. 1: οἷον εἰ τὸ μὴ ὄν ἐστι δοξαστόν, ὅτι τὸ μὴ ὂν ἔστιν· οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὸν εἶναι τέ τι καὶ εἶναι ἁπλῶς.
Compare Metaphys.Z.iv. p. 1030, a. 25, and De Interpretatione, p. 21, a. 25-34: ὥσπερ Ὅμηρός ἐστί τι, οἷον ποιητής· ἆρ’ οὖν καὶ ἔστιν, ἠ οὔ; κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς γὰρ κατηγορεῖται τοῦ Ὁμήρου τὸ ἔστιν· ὅτι γὰρ ποιητής ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ οὐ καθ’ αὑτό, κατηγορεῖται κατὰ τοῦ Ὁμήρου τὸ ἔστιν.
It is clear from the above passages that Aristotle was thoroughly aware of the logical fact which Hobbes, James Mill, and Mr. John Stuart Mill, have more fully brought out and illustrated, as the confusion between the two distinct functions of the substantive verb. Many excellent remarks on the subject will be found in the ‘System of Logic,’ by Mr. J. S. Mill (Bk. I. ch. iv. s. 1); also in the ‘Analysis of the Human Mind,’ by James Mill, especially in the recent edition of that work, containing the explanatory notes by Mr. J. S. Mill and Dr. Findlater (Vol. I. ch. iv. p. 174, seq.). Mr. J. S. Mill, however, speaks too unreservedly of this confusion as having escaped the notice of Aristotle, and as having been brought to light only by or since Hobbes. He says (in a note on the ‘Analysis,’ p. 183):— “As in the case of many other luminous thoughts, an approach is found to have been made to it by previous thinkers. Hobbes, though he did not reach it, came very close to it; and it was still more distinctly anticipated by Laromiguière, though without any sufficient perception of its value … in the following words:— ‘Quand on dit, l’être est, &c., le motest, ou le verbe, n’exprime pas la même chose que le motêtre, sujet de la définition. Si j’énonce la proposition suivante: Dieu est existant, je ne voudrais pas dire assurément, Dieu existe existant: cela ne ferait pas un sens: de même, si je dis que Virgile est poète, je ne veux pas donner à entendre que Virgile existe. Le verbeestdans la proposition n’exprime dont pas l’existence réelle; il n’exprime qu’un rapport spécial entre le sujet et l’attribut, &c.’� The passages above cited from Aristotle show that he had not only enunciated the same truth as Laromiguière, but even illustrated it by the same example (Homer instead of Virgil). I shall in another place state more fully the views of Aristotle respectingExistence.
3. The third of these heads of Fallacy —Ignoratio Elenchi— is, when the speaker, professing to contradict the thesis, advances another proposition which contradicts it in appearance only but not in reality, because he does not know what are the true and sufficient conditions of a valid Elenchus. In order to be valid, it must be real, not merely verbal; it must be proved by good syllogistic premisses, without anyPetitio Principii; and it must deny the same matter, in the same relations, and at the same time, as that which the thesis affirmed. Thus, it is no contradiction to affirm and deny doubleness of the same body; both affirmation and denial may be true, if you take the comparison against different numbers or different bodies, or at different times. Sometimes persons neglect some of these conditions, and fancy that they have contradicted the thesis, when they have not: this isIgnoratio Elenchi.32(If the thesis be an affirmativeuniversal, itissufficient contradiction if you prove a negative particular against it.)
32Soph. El. v. p. 167, a. 21-35: οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὸ μὴ διωρίσθαι τί ἐστι συλλογισμὸς ἢ τί ἔλεγχος, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν ἔλλειψιν γίνονται τοῦ λόγου.We may remark, by the way, that it is not very consistent in Aristotle to recognize one general head of Sophistical Refutation calledIgnoratio Elenchi, after the definition that he has given of the Sophist at the beginning of this treatise. He had told us that the Sophist was a dishonest man, who made it his profession to study and practise these tricks, for the purpose of making himself pass for a clever man, and of getting money. According to this definition, there is noIgnoratio Elenchiin the Sophist, though there may be in the person who supposes himself refuted. The Sophist is assumed to know what he is about, and to be aware that his argument is a fallacious one.
32Soph. El. v. p. 167, a. 21-35: οἱ δὲ παρὰ τὸ μὴ διωρίσθαι τί ἐστι συλλογισμὸς ἢ τί ἔλεγχος, ἀλλὰ παρὰ τὴν ἔλλειψιν γίνονται τοῦ λόγου.
We may remark, by the way, that it is not very consistent in Aristotle to recognize one general head of Sophistical Refutation calledIgnoratio Elenchi, after the definition that he has given of the Sophist at the beginning of this treatise. He had told us that the Sophist was a dishonest man, who made it his profession to study and practise these tricks, for the purpose of making himself pass for a clever man, and of getting money. According to this definition, there is noIgnoratio Elenchiin the Sophist, though there may be in the person who supposes himself refuted. The Sophist is assumed to know what he is about, and to be aware that his argument is a fallacious one.
4. The fourth head includes what are calledFallaciæ Consequentis: when a man inverts the relation between predicate and subject in a categorical proposition affirmative and universal, thinking that it may be simply converted or that the subject may be truly affirmed of the predicate; or when, in an hypothetical proposition, he inverts the relation between antecedent and consequent, arguing that, because the consequent is true, the antecedent must for that reason be true also. Honey is of yellow colour; you see a yellow substance, and you infer for that reason that it must be honey. Thieves generally walk out by night; you find a man walking out by night, and you infer that he must be a thief. These are inferences from Signs, opinions founded on facts of sense, such as are usually employed in Rhetoric; often or usually true, but not necessarily or universally true, and therefore fallacious when used as premisses in a syllogism.33
33Soph. El. v. p. 167, b. 1-18. This head (Fallacia Consequentis) is not essentially distinguishable from the first (Fallacia Accidentis), being nothing more than a peculiar species or variety thereof, as Aristotle himself admits a little farther on — vi. p. 168, a. 26; vii. p. 169, b. 7; viii. p. 170, a. 3. Compare also xxviii. p. 181, a. 25.
33Soph. El. v. p. 167, b. 1-18. This head (Fallacia Consequentis) is not essentially distinguishable from the first (Fallacia Accidentis), being nothing more than a peculiar species or variety thereof, as Aristotle himself admits a little farther on — vi. p. 168, a. 26; vii. p. 169, b. 7; viii. p. 170, a. 3. Compare also xxviii. p. 181, a. 25.
5. The fifth head is that ofPetitio Principii: a man sometimes assumes for his premiss what is identical with the conclusion to be proved, without being aware of the identity.34
34Ibid. v. p. 167, a. 38: διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι συνορᾶν τὸ ταὐτὸν καὶ τὸ ἕτερον.
34Ibid. v. p. 167, a. 38: διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι συνορᾶν τὸ ταὐτὸν καὶ τὸ ἕτερον.
6. The sixth head of Fallacy —Non Causa pro Causâ— is, when we mistake for a cause that which is not really a cause; or, to drop the misleading wordcause, and to adopt the clearer terms in which this same fallacy is announced in the Analytica Priora35—Non per Hoc—Non propter Hoc, it arises when we put forward, as an essential premiss of a given conclusion, something that isnot really an essential premiss thereof. When you intend to refute a given thesis by showing, that, if admitted, it leads to impossible or absurd conclusions, you must enunciate that thesis itself among the premisses that lead to such absurdities.36But, though enunciated in this place, it may often happen that the thesis may be an unnecessary adjunct — not among the premisses really pertinent and essential: and that the impossible conclusion may be sufficiently proved, even though the thesis were omitted. Still, since the thesis is declared along with the rest, it will appear falsely to be a part of the real proof. It will often appear so even to yourself the questioner; you not detecting the fallacy.37Under such circumstances the respondent meets you byNon propter Hoc. He admits your conclusion to be impossible, and at the same time to be duly proved, but he shows you that it is proved by evidence independent of his thesis, and not by reason or means of his thesis. Accordingly you have advanced a syllogism good in itself, but not good for the purpose which you aimed at;38viz., to refute the thesis by establishing that it led to impossible consequences. You will fail, even if the impossible consequence which you advance is a proposition conjoined with the thesis through a continuous series of intermediate propositions, each of them having one common term with the next. Much more will you fail, if your impossible consequence is quite foreign and unconnected with the thesis; as we sometimes find in Dialectic.
35Ibid. b. 21; vii. p. 169, b. 13. Compare Analyt. Prior. II. xvii. p. 65.In commenting on the above chapter of the Analytica Priora, I have already remarked (Vol. I. p. 258,note) how much better is the designation there given of the present fallacy —Non per Hoc(οὐ παρὰ τὴν θέσιν τὸ ψεῦδος) — than the designation here given of the same fallacy —Non Causa pro Causâ. Aristotle is speaking of a syllogistic process, consisting of premisses and a conclusion; the premisses being thereasonsor grounds of the conclusion, not thecausethereof, as that term is commonly understood. The termcauseis one used in so many different senses that we cannot be too careful in reasoning upon it. See Whately’s remarks on this subject, Bk. iii. Sect. 14, of his Logic: also his Appendix I. to that work, under articleReason.
35Ibid. b. 21; vii. p. 169, b. 13. Compare Analyt. Prior. II. xvii. p. 65.
In commenting on the above chapter of the Analytica Priora, I have already remarked (Vol. I. p. 258,note) how much better is the designation there given of the present fallacy —Non per Hoc(οὐ παρὰ τὴν θέσιν τὸ ψεῦδος) — than the designation here given of the same fallacy —Non Causa pro Causâ. Aristotle is speaking of a syllogistic process, consisting of premisses and a conclusion; the premisses being thereasonsor grounds of the conclusion, not thecausethereof, as that term is commonly understood. The termcauseis one used in so many different senses that we cannot be too careful in reasoning upon it. See Whately’s remarks on this subject, Bk. iii. Sect. 14, of his Logic: also his Appendix I. to that work, under articleReason.
36Soph. El. v. p. 167, b. 24: ἐὰν οὖν ἐγκαταριθμήθῃ ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις ἐρωτήμασι πρὸς τὸ συμβαῖνον ἀδύνατον, δόξει παρὰ τοῦτο γίνεσθαι πολλάκις ὁ ἔλεγχος.
36Soph. El. v. p. 167, b. 24: ἐὰν οὖν ἐγκαταριθμήθῃ ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις ἐρωτήμασι πρὸς τὸ συμβαῖνον ἀδύνατον, δόξει παρὰ τοῦτο γίνεσθαι πολλάκις ὁ ἔλεγχος.
37Ibid. b. 35: καὶ λανθάνει πολλάκις οὐχ ἧττον αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἐρωτῶντας τὸ τοιοῦτον.
37Ibid. b. 35: καὶ λανθάνει πολλάκις οὐχ ἧττον αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἐρωτῶντας τὸ τοιοῦτον.
38Ibid. b. 34: ἀσυλλόγιστοι μὲν οὖν ἁπλῶς οὐκ εἰσὶν οἱ τοιοῦτοι λόγοι, πρὸς δὲ τὸ προκείμενον ἀσυλλόγιστοι.
38Ibid. b. 34: ἀσυλλόγιστοι μὲν οὖν ἁπλῶς οὐκ εἰσὶν οἱ τοιοῦτοι λόγοι, πρὸς δὲ τὸ προκείμενον ἀσυλλόγιστοι.
7. The seventh and last of these heads of Fallacy is, when the questioner puts two distinct questions in the same form of words, as if they were one —Fallacia Plurium Interrogationum ut Unius. In well-conducted Dialectic the respondent was assumed to reply either Yes or No to the question put; or, if it was put in the form of an alternative, he accepted distinctly one term of the alternative. Under such conditions he could not reply to one of these double-termed questions without speaking falsely or committing himself. Are the earth and the sea liquid? Is the heaven or the earth sea? The questions are improperly put, and neither admits of any one correct answer. You ought to confine yourself to one question at a time, with one subject and one predicate, making what is properly understood by one single proposition. The two questions here stated as examples ought properly to be put as four.39
39Ibid. b. 38-p. 168, a. 16; vi. p. 169, a. 6-12. ἡ γὰρ πρότασίς ἐστιν ἓν καθ’ ἑνός. — εἰ οὖν μία πρότασις ἡ ἓν καθ’ ἑνὸς ἀξιοῦσα, καὶ ἁπλῶς ἔσται πρότασις ἡ τοιαύτη ἐρώτησις.The examples given of this fallacy by Aristotle are so palpable — the expounder of every fallacymustmake it clear by giving examples that every one sees through at once — that we are tempted to imagine that no one can be imposed on by it. But Aristotle himself remarks, very justly, that there occur many cases in which we do not readily see whether one question only, or more than one, is involved; and in which one answer is made, though two questions are concerned. To set out distinctly all the separate debateable points is one of the most essential precautions for ensuring correct decision. The importance of such discriminating separation is one of the four rules prescribed by Descartes in his Discours de la Méthode. The present case comes under Mr. Mill’s Fallacies of Confusion.
39Ibid. b. 38-p. 168, a. 16; vi. p. 169, a. 6-12. ἡ γὰρ πρότασίς ἐστιν ἓν καθ’ ἑνός. — εἰ οὖν μία πρότασις ἡ ἓν καθ’ ἑνὸς ἀξιοῦσα, καὶ ἁπλῶς ἔσται πρότασις ἡ τοιαύτη ἐρώτησις.
The examples given of this fallacy by Aristotle are so palpable — the expounder of every fallacymustmake it clear by giving examples that every one sees through at once — that we are tempted to imagine that no one can be imposed on by it. But Aristotle himself remarks, very justly, that there occur many cases in which we do not readily see whether one question only, or more than one, is involved; and in which one answer is made, though two questions are concerned. To set out distinctly all the separate debateable points is one of the most essential precautions for ensuring correct decision. The importance of such discriminating separation is one of the four rules prescribed by Descartes in his Discours de la Méthode. The present case comes under Mr. Mill’s Fallacies of Confusion.
Aristotle has thus distinguished and classified Fallacies under thirteen distinct heads in all — sixIn Dictione, and sevenExtra Dictionem; among which last one isIgnoratio Elenchi. He now proceeds to show that, in another way of looking at the matter, all the Fallacies ranged under the thirteen heads, may be shown to be reducible to this single one —Ignoratio Elenchi. Every Fallacy, whatever it be, transgresses or fails to satisfy, in some way or other, the canons or conditions which go to constitute a valid Elenchus,40or a valid Syllogism. For a true Elenchus is only one mode of a true Syllogism; namely, that of which the conclusion is contradictory to some given thesis or proposition.41With this particular added, the definition of a valid Syllogism will also be the definition of a good Elenchus. And thusIgnoratio Elenchi— misconception or neglect of the conditions of a good Elenchus — understood in its largest meaning, is rather a characteristic common to all varieties of Fallacy, than one variety among others.42
40Soph. El. vi. p. 168, a. 19: ἔστι γὰρ ἅπαντας ἀναλῦσαι τοὺς λεχθέντας τρόπους εἰς τὸν τοῦ ἐλέγχου διορισμόν.
40Soph. El. vi. p. 168, a. 19: ἔστι γὰρ ἅπαντας ἀναλῦσαι τοὺς λεχθέντας τρόπους εἰς τὸν τοῦ ἐλέγχου διορισμόν.
41Ibid. a. 35.
41Ibid. a. 35.
42Ibid. p. 169, b. 15.
42Ibid. p. 169, b. 15.
In regard to two among the thirteen heads —Fallacia AccidentisandFallacia Consequentis(which however ought properly to rank as only one head, since the second is merely a particular variety of the first) — Aristotle’s observations are remarkable. After having pointed out that a Syllogism embodying this fallacy will not be valid or conclusive (thus showing that it involvesIgnoratio Elenchi), he affirms that even scientific men were often not aware of it, and conceived themselves to be really refuted by an unscientific opponent urging against them such an inconclusive syllogism. To take an example:— Every triangle has its three angles equal to two right angles; every triangle is a figure; therefore, every figure has its three angles equal to two right angles.43Here we have an invalid syllogism; for it is inthe Third figure, and sins against the conditions of that figure, by exhibiting an universal affirmative conclusion: it is a syllogism properly concluding inDarapti, but with conclusion improperly generalized. Yet Aristotle intimates that a scientific geometer of his day, in argument with an unscientific opponent, would admit the conclusion to be well proved, not knowing how to point out where the fallacy lay: he would, if asked, grant the premisses necessary for constructing such a syllogism; and, even if not asked, would suppose that he had already granted them, or that they ought to be granted.44
43Ibid. p. 168, a. 40: οὐδ’ εἰ τὸ τρίγωνον δυοῖν ὀρθαῖν ἴσας ἔχει,συμβέβηκε δ’ αὐτῷ σχήματι εἶναιἢ πρώτῳ ἢ ἀρχῇ, ὅτισχῆμαἢ ἀρχὴ ἢ πρῶτον τοῦτο.Here we have Figure reckoned as anaccidentof Triangle. This is a specimen of Aristotle’s occasional laxity in employing the word συμβεβηκός. He commonly uses it as contrasted withessential, of which last term Mr. Poste says very justly (notes, p. 129):— “To complete the statement of Aristotle’s view, it should be added, that essential propositions are those whose predicate cannot be defined without naming the subject, or whose subject cannot be defined without naming the predicate.â€� Now figure is the genus to which triangle belongs, and triangle cannot be defined without naming its genus figure. But to include Genus as a predicable under the head of συμβεβηκός or Accident, is in marked opposition to Aristotle’s own doctrine elsewhere: see Topic. I. v. p. 102, b. 4; iv. p. 101, b. 17; Analyt. Post. I. ii. p. 71, b. 9; Metaphys.E.p. 1026, b. 32. It is a misfortune that Aristotle gave to this general head of Fallacy the misleading title ofFallacia Accidentia— παρὰ τὸ συμβεβηκός. When he gave this title, he probably had present to his mind only such examples as he indicates in Soph. El. v. p. 166, b. 32. Throughout the Topica and elsewhere, Genus is distinguished pointedly from συμβεβηκός, though examples occur occasionally in which the distinction is neglected. The two Fallacies calledAccidentisandConsequentis, would both be more properly ranked under one common logical title —Supposed convertibility or interchangeableness between Subject and Predicate— εἰ τόδε ἀπὸ τοῦδε μὴ χωρίζεται, μηδ’ ἀπὸ θατέρου χωρίζεσθαι θάτερον (vii. p. 169, b. 8).
43Ibid. p. 168, a. 40: οὐδ’ εἰ τὸ τρίγωνον δυοῖν ὀρθαῖν ἴσας ἔχει,συμβέβηκε δ’ αὐτῷ σχήματι εἶναιἢ πρώτῳ ἢ ἀρχῇ, ὅτισχῆμαἢ ἀρχὴ ἢ πρῶτον τοῦτο.
Here we have Figure reckoned as anaccidentof Triangle. This is a specimen of Aristotle’s occasional laxity in employing the word συμβεβηκός. He commonly uses it as contrasted withessential, of which last term Mr. Poste says very justly (notes, p. 129):— “To complete the statement of Aristotle’s view, it should be added, that essential propositions are those whose predicate cannot be defined without naming the subject, or whose subject cannot be defined without naming the predicate.â€� Now figure is the genus to which triangle belongs, and triangle cannot be defined without naming its genus figure. But to include Genus as a predicable under the head of συμβεβηκός or Accident, is in marked opposition to Aristotle’s own doctrine elsewhere: see Topic. I. v. p. 102, b. 4; iv. p. 101, b. 17; Analyt. Post. I. ii. p. 71, b. 9; Metaphys.E.p. 1026, b. 32. It is a misfortune that Aristotle gave to this general head of Fallacy the misleading title ofFallacia Accidentia— παρὰ τὸ συμβεβηκός. When he gave this title, he probably had present to his mind only such examples as he indicates in Soph. El. v. p. 166, b. 32. Throughout the Topica and elsewhere, Genus is distinguished pointedly from συμβεβηκός, though examples occur occasionally in which the distinction is neglected. The two Fallacies calledAccidentisandConsequentis, would both be more properly ranked under one common logical title —Supposed convertibility or interchangeableness between Subject and Predicate— εἰ τόδε ἀπὸ τοῦδε μὴ χωρίζεται, μηδ’ ἀπὸ θατέρου χωρίζεσθαι θάτερον (vii. p. 169, b. 8).
44Soph. El. vi. p. 168, b. 6: ἀλλὰ παρὰ τοῦτο καὶ οἱ τεχνῖται καὶ ὅλως οἱ ἐπιστήμονες ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνεπιστημόνων ἐλέγχονται· κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς γὰρ ποιοῦνται τοὺς συλλογισμοὺς πρὸς τοὺς εἰδότας· οἱ δ’ οὐ δυνάμενοι διαιρεῖν ἢ ἐρωτώμενοι διδόασιν ἢ οὐ δόντες οἴονται δεδωκέναι.
44Soph. El. vi. p. 168, b. 6: ἀλλὰ παρὰ τοῦτο καὶ οἱ τεχνῖται καὶ ὅλως οἱ ἐπιστήμονες ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνεπιστημόνων ἐλέγχονται· κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς γὰρ ποιοῦνται τοὺς συλλογισμοὺς πρὸς τοὺς εἰδότας· οἱ δ’ οὐ δυνάμενοι διαιρεῖν ἢ ἐρωτώμενοι διδόασιν ἢ οὐ δόντες οἴονται δεδωκέναι.
The passage affords us a curious insight into the intellectual grasp of the scientific men contemporary with Aristotle. Most of them were prepared to admit fallacious inferences (such as the above) which assumed the interchangeability of subject and predicate. They had paid little or no attention to the logical relations between one proposition and another, and between the two different terms of the same proposition. The differences of essential from accidental predication, and of each among the five Predicables from the others, must have been practically familiar to them, as to others, from the habit of correct speaking in detail; but they had not been called upon to consider correct speaking and reasoning in theory, nor to understand upon what conditions it depended whether the march of their argumentative discourse landed them in true or false results. And, if even the scientific men were thus unaware of logical fallacies, we may be sure that this must have been still more the case with unscientific men, of ordinary intelligence and education. Aristotle tells us here, in more than one passage, how widespread suchillogical tendencies were: to fancy that two subjects which had one predicate the same must be the same with each other in all respects;45to understand each predicate applied to a subject as being itself an independent subject, implying a newHoc AliquidorUnum;46to treat the universal, not as a common epithet but, as a substantive and singular apart;47to use equivocal words or phrases, even the most wide and vague, without any attempt to discriminate their various meanings.48Such insensibility to the conditions of accurate reasoning prevailed alike among ordinary men and among the men of special science. A geometer would be imposed upon by the inconclusive syllogism stated in the last paragraph, which, as being founded on theFallacia Accidentia(or interchangeability of subject and predicate), Aristotle numbers among Sophistical Refutations. Such a refutation, however, even when successful, would not at all prove that the geometer was deficient in knowledge of his own science;49for it would puzzle the really scientific man as well as the pretender.
45Soph. El. vi. p. 168, b. 31: τὰ γὰρ ἑνὶ ταὐτά, καὶ ἀλλήλοις ἀξιοῦμεν εἶναι ταὐτά. — vii. p. 169, b. 7: ἔτι καὶ ἐπὶ πολλῶν φαίνεταικαὶ ἀξιοῦται οὕτως, εἰ τόδε ἀπὸ τοῦδε μὴ χωρίζεται, μηδ’ ἀπὸ θατέρου χωρίζεσθαι θάτερον.
45Soph. El. vi. p. 168, b. 31: τὰ γὰρ ἑνὶ ταὐτά, καὶ ἀλλήλοις ἀξιοῦμεν εἶναι ταὐτά. — vii. p. 169, b. 7: ἔτι καὶ ἐπὶ πολλῶν φαίνεταικαὶ ἀξιοῦται οὕτως, εἰ τόδε ἀπὸ τοῦδε μὴ χωρίζεται, μηδ’ ἀπὸ θατέρου χωρίζεσθαι θάτερον.
46Ibid. vii. p. 169, a. 33: ὅτιπᾶν τὸ κατηγορούμενόν τινος ὑπολαμβάνομεν τόδε τι καὶ ὡς ἓν ὑπακούομεν· τῷ γὰρ ἑνὶ καὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ μάλιστα δοκεῖ παρέπεσθαι τὸ τόδε τι καὶ τὸ ὄν.
46Ibid. vii. p. 169, a. 33: ὅτιπᾶν τὸ κατηγορούμενόν τινος ὑπολαμβάνομεν τόδε τι καὶ ὡς ἓν ὑπακούομεν· τῷ γὰρ ἑνὶ καὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ μάλιστα δοκεῖ παρέπεσθαι τὸ τόδε τι καὶ τὸ ὄν.
47Ibid. xxii. p. 178, b. 37-p. 179, a. 10.
47Ibid. xxii. p. 178, b. 37-p. 179, a. 10.
48Ibid. vii. p. 169, a. 22.
48Ibid. vii. p. 169, a. 22.
49Ibid. viii. p. 169, b. 27: οἱ δὲ σοφιστικοὶ ἔλεγχοι, ἂν καὶ συλλογίζωνται τὴν ἀντίφασιν, οὐ ποιοῦσι δῆλον εἰ ἀγνοεῖ· καὶ γὰρ τὸν εἰδότα ἐμποδίζουσι τούτοις τοῖς λόγοις. Compare vi. p. 168, b. 6.
49Ibid. viii. p. 169, b. 27: οἱ δὲ σοφιστικοὶ ἔλεγχοι, ἂν καὶ συλλογίζωνται τὴν ἀντίφασιν, οὐ ποιοῦσι δῆλον εἰ ἀγνοεῖ· καὶ γὰρ τὸν εἰδότα ἐμποδίζουσι τούτοις τοῖς λόγοις. Compare vi. p. 168, b. 6.
We must always recollect that Aristotle was the first author who studied the logical relations between Terms and Propositions, with a view to theory and to general rules founded thereupon. The distinctions which he brought to view were in his time novelties; even the simplest rules, such as those relating to the Conversion of propositions, or to Contraries and Contradictories, had never been stated in general terms before. Up to a certain point, indeed, acquired habit, even without these generalities, would doubtless lead to correct speech and reasoning; yet liable to be perverted in many cases by erroneous tendencies, requiring to be indicated and guarded against by a logician. When we are told that even a professed geometer was imposed upon by these fallacies, we learn at once how deep-seated were such illogical deficiencies, how useful was Aristotle’s theoretical study in marking them out, and how insufficient was his classification when he described the Fallacies as obvious frauds, broached only by dishonest professional Sophists. As he himself states, the cause of deceit turns upon a quite trifling difference; having its root in the imperfection of language andin our frequent habit of using words without much attention to logical distinctions.50
50Soph. El. vii. p. 169, b. 14: ἐν ἅπασι γὰρ ἡ ἀπάτη διὰ τὸ παρὰ μικρόν· οὐ γὰρ διακριβοῦμεν οὔτε τῆς προτάσεως οὔτε τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ τὸν ὅρον διὰ τὴν εἰρημένην αἰτίαν. Compare v. p. 167, a. 5-14; i. p. 165, a. 6-19.
50Soph. El. vii. p. 169, b. 14: ἐν ἅπασι γὰρ ἡ ἀπάτη διὰ τὸ παρὰ μικρόν· οὐ γὰρ διακριβοῦμεν οὔτε τῆς προτάσεως οὔτε τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ τὸν ὅρον διὰ τὴν εἰρημένην αἰτίαν. Compare v. p. 167, a. 5-14; i. p. 165, a. 6-19.
Under one or other, then, of the thirteen general heads above enumerated, all Paralogisms must be included — merely apparent syllogisms, or refutations, which are not real and valid;51and all of them designated by Aristotle as sophistic or eristic. Besides these, moreover, he includes, as we saw, under the same designation, syllogisms or refutations valid in form, and true as to conclusion, yet founded on premisses not suited to the matter in debate;i.e., not suited to Dialectic. Now, here it is that difficulty arises. Dialectic and Rhetoric are carefully distinguished by Aristotle from all the special sciences (such as Geometry, Astronomy, Medicine, &c.); and are construed as embracing every variety of authoritativedicta, current beliefs, and matters of opinion, together with all the most general maxims and hypotheses of Ontology and Metaphysics, of Physics and Ethics, and the common Axioms assumed in all the sciences, as discriminated from what is special and peculiar to each. Construed in this way, we might imagine that the subject-matter of Dialectic was all-comprehensive, and that every thing without exception belonged to it, except the specialties of Geometry and of the other sciences; and such is the usual language of Aristotle. Yet in the treatise before us we find him exerting himself to establish another classification, and to part off Dialectic from a certain other science or art which he acknowledges under the title of Sophistic or Eristic.52Elsewhere he describes Sophistic as occupied in the study of accidents or occasional conjunctions; and this characteristic feature parts it off from Demonstration and Science. But there is greater difficulty when he tries to part it off from Dialectic. Where are we to find a clear line of distinction between the matter of dialectic debate (gymnastic or testing) on the one hand, and the matter of debate sophistic or litigious, on the other? At the beginning of the Topica Aristotle assigned, as the distinction, that the Dialectician argues upon premissesreallyprobable, while the litigious Sophist takes up premisses which are probablein appearance only, and not in reality; such apparentprobabilia(he goes on to say) having only the most superficial semblance oftruth, and being seen immediately to be manifest falsehoods by persons of very ordinary intelligence.53But I have already pointed out that this description of apparentprobabilia, if considered as applying to fallacious reasoning generally, is both untenable in itself, and contradicted by Aristotle himself elsewhere. The truth is, that there is no clear distinction between the matter of Dialectic and the matter of Sophistic. And so, indeed, Aristotle must be understood to admit, when he falls back upon an alleged distinction of aim and purpose between the practitioners of one and the other. The litigious man (he tells us) is bent upon nothing but victory in debate,per fas et nefas: the Sophist aims at passing himself off falsely for a wise or clever man, and making money thereby.54