85Ibid. xvi. p. 175, a. 5-16. CompareTopica, I. ii. p. 101, a. 30, seq.
85Ibid. xvi. p. 175, a. 5-16. CompareTopica, I. ii. p. 101, a. 30, seq.
86Soph. El. xvi. p. 175, a. 9: δεύτερον δὲ πρὸς τὰς καθ’ αὑτὸν ζητήσεις (χρήσιμοι)· ὁ γὰρ ὑφ’ ἑτέρου ῥᾳδιως παραλογιζόμενος καὶ τοῦτο μὴ αἰσθανόμενος κἂν αὐτὸς ὑφ’ αὑτοῦ τοῦτο πάθοι πολλάκις.
86Soph. El. xvi. p. 175, a. 9: δεύτερον δὲ πρὸς τὰς καθ’ αὑτὸν ζητήσεις (χρήσιμοι)· ὁ γὰρ ὑφ’ ἑτέρου ῥᾳδιως παραλογιζόμενος καὶ τοῦτο μὴ αἰσθανόμενος κἂν αὐτὸς ὑφ’ αὑτοῦ τοῦτο πάθοι πολλάκις.
87Ibid. a. 20: οὐ ταὐτὸ δ’ ἐστὶ λαβόντα τε τὸν λόγον ἰδεῖν καὶ λῦσαι τὴν μοχθηρίαν, καὶ ἐρωτώμενον ἀπαντᾶν δύνασθαι ταχέως. ὃ γὰρ ἴσμεν, πολλάκις μετατιθέμενον ἀγνοοῦμεν. Compare xxxiii. p. 182, b. 7.
87Ibid. a. 20: οὐ ταὐτὸ δ’ ἐστὶ λαβόντα τε τὸν λόγον ἰδεῖν καὶ λῦσαι τὴν μοχθηρίαν, καὶ ἐρωτώμενον ἀπαντᾶν δύνασθαι ταχέως. ὃ γὰρ ἴσμεν, πολλάκις μετατιθέμενον ἀγνοοῦμεν. Compare xxxiii. p. 182, b. 7.
88Soph. El. xvi. p. 175, a. 25: ὥστε, ἂν δῆλον μὲν ἡμῖν ᾖ, ἀμελέτητοι δ’ ὦμεν, ὑστεροῦμεν τῶν καιρῶν πολλάκις.
88Soph. El. xvi. p. 175, a. 25: ὥστε, ἂν δῆλον μὲν ἡμῖν ᾖ, ἀμελέτητοι δ’ ὦμεν, ὑστεροῦμεν τῶν καιρῶν πολλάκις.
Accordingly the Sophistici Elenchi contains precepts, at considerable length,89to the respondent in a sophistical debate, how reply or solution is to be given to the fallacies involved in the questions; all the thirteen Fallacies, (the sixIn Dictione, and the sevenExtra Dictionem) being treated in succession. In conducting his defensive procedure, the respondent must keep constantly in mind what the Sophistical Refutation really is. He must treat it not as a real or genuine refutation, but as a mere simulation of such; and he must so arrange his reply as to bring into full evidence this fact of simulation. What he has to guard against is, not the being really refuted but, the seeming to be refuted.90The refutative syllogism constructed by the sophistical questioner, including as it does Equivocation, Amphiboly, or some other verbal fallacy, and therefore yielding no valid conclusion, does not settle whether the respondent is really refuted or not. If indeed the questioner, in putting his interrogation, discriminates the double meaning of his words, where they have a double meaning, the respondent ought to answer plainly and briefly Yes, or No; either affirming or denying what is tendered. But, if the questioner does not so discriminate, the respondent cannot reply simply Yes, or No: he must himself discriminate the two meanings, and affirm or deny accordingly.91Unless he guards himself by such discrimination, he cannot avoid falling into a contradiction, at least in appearance. The equivocal wording of the question will be tantamount to the fallacy of putting two questions as one.92
89From xvi. p. 175, to xxxiii. p. 183, of Soph. El.
89From xvi. p. 175, to xxxiii. p. 183, of Soph. El.
90Soph. El. xvii. p. 175, a. 33: ὅλως γὰρ πρὸς τοὺς ἐριστικοὺς μαχετέον, οὐκ ὡς ἐλέγχοντας, ἀλλ’ ὡς φαινομένους· οὐ γάρ φαμεν συλλογίζεσθαί γε αὐτούς, ὥστε πρὸς τὸ μὴ δοκεῖν διορθωτέον.
90Soph. El. xvii. p. 175, a. 33: ὅλως γὰρ πρὸς τοὺς ἐριστικοὺς μαχετέον, οὐκ ὡς ἐλέγχοντας, ἀλλ’ ὡς φαινομένους· οὐ γάρ φαμεν συλλογίζεσθαί γε αὐτούς, ὥστε πρὸς τὸ μὴ δοκεῖν διορθωτέον.
91Ibid. b. 1-14. Compare Topica, VIII. vii. p. 160, a. 29.Aristotle tells us that this demand for a reply brief and direct, without any qualifying additions or distinctions, was advanced by dialecticians in former days much more emphatically than in his own — ὅ τ’ ἐπιζητοῦσι νῦν μὲν ἧττον πρότερον δὲ μᾶλλον οἱ ἐριστικοί, τὸ ἢ ναὶ ἢ οὒ ἀποκρίνεσθαι τὸν ἐρωτώμενον, ἐγίνετ’ ἄν. I presume that he makes comparison with the Platonic dialogues — Euthydemus, p. 295; Gorgias, pp. 448-449; Protagoras, pp. 334-335.
91Ibid. b. 1-14. Compare Topica, VIII. vii. p. 160, a. 29.
Aristotle tells us that this demand for a reply brief and direct, without any qualifying additions or distinctions, was advanced by dialecticians in former days much more emphatically than in his own — ὅ τ’ ἐπιζητοῦσι νῦν μὲν ἧττον πρότερον δὲ μᾶλλον οἱ ἐριστικοί, τὸ ἢ ναὶ ἢ οὒ ἀποκρίνεσθαι τὸν ἐρωτώμενον, ἐγίνετ’ ἄν. I presume that he makes comparison with the Platonic dialogues — Euthydemus, p. 295; Gorgias, pp. 448-449; Protagoras, pp. 334-335.
92Soph. El. xvii. 175, b. 15-p. 176, a. 18.
92Soph. El. xvii. 175, b. 15-p. 176, a. 18.
As the questioner may propound as refutation what seems to be such but is not so in reality, so the respondent may meet it by what is an apparent solution but no solution in reality, There occur various cases, in sophistic or agonistic debate, wherein a simulated solution of this kind is even preferable to a real one.93If the question is plausible, the respondent may answer, “Be it so�; but, if it involves any paradox in answering, he will answer by saying, “So it would appear�: he will thus not be supposed to have granted what amounts to refutation or paradox.94Where the question put is such that, while involving falsehood or paradox if answered in the affirmative, it is at the same time closely or immediately connected with the thesis set up, — the respondent may treat it as equivalent to aPetitio Principii, and make answer in the negative. Also, where the questioner, trying to establish an universal proposition by Induction, puts the final question, not under an universal term but, as the general result of the particulars conceded (and such like), — the respondent may refuse to admit this last step, and may say that his antecedent concessions have been misunderstood.95
93Ibid. p. 176, a. 21.
93Ibid. p. 176, a. 21.
94Ibid. a. 25.
94Ibid. a. 25.
95Ibid. a. 27-35.
95Ibid. a. 27-35.
If a question is put in plain and appropriate language, answer must be made plainly or with some clear distinction; but, where the question is put obscurely and elliptically, leaving part of the meaning unexpressed, the respondent must not concede it unreservedly. If he does, fallacious refutation may very possibly be the result:96he may appear to be refuted by that which is no real refutation. If, of two propositions, the second follows upon the first, but the first does not follow upon the second, the respondent, where he has the choice, ought to grant the second only, and not the first. He ought not to make a greater concession when he can escape with a less;97e.g., he ought to concede the particular rather than the universal.
96Ibid. a. 38-b. 7.
96Ibid. a. 38-b. 7.
97Ibid. b. 8-13.
97Ibid. b. 8-13.
Again, among opinions generally received, there are some which the public recognize as matters of more or less doubt and uncertainty; others, on which they are firmly assured thatevery one who contradicts them speaks falsely. When it is uncertain to which of these two classes the question put is referable, the respondent will be safer in answering neither affirmatively nor negatively, but simply, “I go with the received opinions.�98In cases where opinions are divided, he may find opportunity for changing the terms, and for substituting a metaphorical equivalent as what he concedes. Such change of terms may pass without protest, in consequence of the doubtful character of the matter; while it will embarrass the questioner in constructing his refutation.99The respondent may further embarrass him by anticipating questions that seem likely to be put, and by objecting against them beforehand.100
98Soph. El.xvii.p. 176, b. 14-20.Both the text and the meaning of this difficult clause are differently given by various commentators. The text and construction of Waitz appears to me the best, and I have followed him. I cannot agree with Mr. Poste when he declares (notes, p. 143) ἀποφάνεις to be the true reading, instead of ἀποφάσεις, which last is adopted both by Bekker and in the edition ofFirminDidot.
98Soph. El.xvii.p. 176, b. 14-20.
Both the text and the meaning of this difficult clause are differently given by various commentators. The text and construction of Waitz appears to me the best, and I have followed him. I cannot agree with Mr. Poste when he declares (notes, p. 143) ἀποφάνεις to be the true reading, instead of ἀποφάσεις, which last is adopted both by Bekker and in the edition ofFirminDidot.
99Ibid. b. 20-25.
99Ibid. b. 20-25.
100Ibid. b. 26.
100Ibid. b. 26.
When the questioner has obtained the premisses which he thinks necessary, and has drawn from them a refutative syllogism, the respondent must see whether he can properly solve that syllogism or not.101A good and proper solution is, to point out on which premiss the fallacy of the conclusion depends. First, he must examine whether it is formally correct, or whether it has only a false appearance of being so: if the last be the case, he must distinguish in which of the premisses and in what way such false appearance has arisen. If on the other hand the syllogism is formally correct, he must look whether the conclusion is true or false. Should it be true, he cannot solve the syllogism except by controverting one or both of the premisses; but should the conclusion be false, two modes of solution are open to him. One mode is, if he can point out an equivocation or amphiboly in the terms of the conclusion; another mode will be, to controvert, or exhibit a fallacy in, one of the premisses.102The respondent, however, must learn to apply this examination rapidly and unhesitatingly: to do so at once is very difficult, though it may be easily done if he has leisure to reflect.103
101Soph. El. xviii. p. 176, b. 29: ἡ μέν ὀρθὴ λύσις ἐμφάνισις ψευδοῦς συλλογισμοῦ, παρ’ ὁποίαν ἐρώτησιν συμβαίνει τὸ ψεῦδος.
101Soph. El. xviii. p. 176, b. 29: ἡ μέν ὀρθὴ λύσις ἐμφάνισις ψευδοῦς συλλογισμοῦ, παρ’ ὁποίαν ἐρώτησιν συμβαίνει τὸ ψεῦδος.
102Soph. El. xviii. p. 176, b. 38: τοὺς μὲν κατὰ τὸ συμπέρασμα ψευδεῖς διχῶς ἐνδέχεται λύειν· καὶ γὰρ τῷ ἀνελεῖν τι τῶν ἠρωτημένων, καὶ τῷ δεῖξαι τὸ συμπέρασμα ἔχον οὐχ οὕτως.Mr. Poste translates these last words — “or by a counterproof directed against the conclusion:â€� and he remarks in his note (pp. 145-147), “that this assertion — disproof of the conclusion of the refutative syllogism is one mode ofsolution— is both manifestly inadmissible, and flatly contradicted by Aristotle himself elsewhere.â€� The words of Aristotle doubtless seem to countenance Mr. Poste’s translation; yet the contradiction pointed out by Mr. Poste (and very imperfectly explained, p. 147) ought to make us look out for another meaning; which is suggested by the chapter immediately following (xix. p. 177, a. 9), where Aristotle treats of the Fallacies of Equivocation and Amphiboly. He tells us that equivocation may be found either in the conclusion or in the premisses; and that to show it in the conclusion is one mode of solving or invalidating the refutation. This is what Aristotle means by the words cited at the beginning of this note: τῷ δεῖξαι τὸ συμπέρασμα ἔχον οὐχ ὀρθῶς. In Mr. Poste’s translation these words mean the same as ἀνελεῖν used just before, which Aristotle obviously does not intend.
102Soph. El. xviii. p. 176, b. 38: τοὺς μὲν κατὰ τὸ συμπέρασμα ψευδεῖς διχῶς ἐνδέχεται λύειν· καὶ γὰρ τῷ ἀνελεῖν τι τῶν ἠρωτημένων, καὶ τῷ δεῖξαι τὸ συμπέρασμα ἔχον οὐχ οὕτως.
Mr. Poste translates these last words — “or by a counterproof directed against the conclusion:â€� and he remarks in his note (pp. 145-147), “that this assertion — disproof of the conclusion of the refutative syllogism is one mode ofsolution— is both manifestly inadmissible, and flatly contradicted by Aristotle himself elsewhere.â€� The words of Aristotle doubtless seem to countenance Mr. Poste’s translation; yet the contradiction pointed out by Mr. Poste (and very imperfectly explained, p. 147) ought to make us look out for another meaning; which is suggested by the chapter immediately following (xix. p. 177, a. 9), where Aristotle treats of the Fallacies of Equivocation and Amphiboly. He tells us that equivocation may be found either in the conclusion or in the premisses; and that to show it in the conclusion is one mode of solving or invalidating the refutation. This is what Aristotle means by the words cited at the beginning of this note: τῷ δεῖξαι τὸ συμπέρασμα ἔχον οὐχ ὀρθῶς. In Mr. Poste’s translation these words mean the same as ἀνελεῖν used just before, which Aristotle obviously does not intend.
103Soph. El. xviii. p. 177, a. 7.
103Soph. El. xviii. p. 177, a. 7.
Aristotle then proceeds to indicate the modes in which the respondent may provide solutions for each of the thirteen heads of fallacious refutation above enumerated. For these thirteen classes, he pronounces that one and the same solution will be found applicable to all fallacies contained in one and the same class.104
104Scholia, p. 312, a. 4, Br.; Soph. El. 20, p. 177, b. 31: τῶν γὰρ παρὰ ταὐτὸν λόγων ἡ αὐτὴ λύσις, &c.
104Scholia, p. 312, a. 4, Br.; Soph. El. 20, p. 177, b. 31: τῶν γὰρ παρὰ ταὐτὸν λόγων ἡ αὐτὴ λύσις, &c.
Thus, in the two first of them — Equivocation of Terms and Amphiboly of Propositions — duplicity of meaning must be either in the conclusion, or in the premisses, of the refutative syllogism. If it be in the conclusion, the refutation must at once be rejected, unless the respondent has previously admitted some proposition containing the equivocal word as one of its terms, so that the refutation may appear to contradict it expressly and distinctly. But, if it be in the premisses, then there is no necessity that the respondent should have previously admitted such a proposition; for the equivocal word may form the middle term of the refutative syllogism, and may thus not appear in the conclusion thereof.105The proper way for the respondent to deal with these questions, involving equivocation or amphiboly, is to answer them, at the outset, with a reserve for the double meaning, thus: “In one sense, it is so; in another sense, it is not.� If he does not perceive the double meaning until he has already answered the first question, he must recover himself, when he answers the second, by pointing out the equivocation more distinctly, and by specifying how much he is prepared to concede.106Even if he has been taken unawares, and has not perceived the equivocation until the refutative syllogism has been constructed simply and absolutely, he should still contend that he never meant to concede what has been apparently refuted, and that the refutation tells only against the name, not against the thing meant;107so that there is no genuine refutation at all.
105Soph. El. xix. p. 177, a. 18: ὅσοις δ’ ἐν τοῖς ἐρωτήμασιν, οὐκ ἀνάγκη προαποφῆσαι τὸ διττόν· οὐ γὰρ πρὸς τοῦτο ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ λόγος.
105Soph. El. xix. p. 177, a. 18: ὅσοις δ’ ἐν τοῖς ἐρωτήμασιν, οὐκ ἀνάγκη προαποφῆσαι τὸ διττόν· οὐ γὰρ πρὸς τοῦτο ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ λόγος.
106Ibid. a. 24: ἐὰν δὲ λάθῃ, ἐπὶ τέλει προστιθέντα τῇ ἐρωτήσει διορθωτέον· &c.
106Ibid. a. 24: ἐὰν δὲ λάθῃ, ἐπὶ τέλει προστιθέντα τῇ ἐρωτήσει διορθωτέον· &c.
107Ibid. a. 30: ὅλως τε μαχετέον, ἂν καὶ ἁπλῶς συλλογίζηται, ὅτι οὐχ ὃ ἔφησεν ἀπέφησε πρᾶγμα, ἀλλ’ ὄνομα· ὥστ’ οὐκ ἔλεγχος.Instead of ἂν καί, Julius Pacius reads κἄν: the meaning is much the same.
107Ibid. a. 30: ὅλως τε μαχετέον, ἂν καὶ ἁπλῶς συλλογίζηται, ὅτι οὐχ ὃ ἔφησεν ἀπέφησε πρᾶγμα, ἀλλ’ ὄνομα· ὥστ’ οὐκ ἔλεγχος.
Instead of ἂν καί, Julius Pacius reads κἄν: the meaning is much the same.
In the next two Fallacies — those of Composition and Division, or Conjunction and Disjunction — when the questioner draws up his refutative syllogism as if one of the two had been conceded, the respondent will retort by saying that his concession was intended only in the other construction of the words. This fallacy is distinct from Equivocation; and it is a mistake to try (as some have tried) to reduce all fallacies to Equivocation or Amphiboly.108The respondent will distinguish, in each particular case, that construction of the words which he intended in his admission, from that which the questioner assumes in his pretended refutation.109
108Soph. El. xx. p. 177, a. 33-b. 9. οὐ πάντες οἱ ἔλεγχοι παρὰ τὸ διττόν, καθάπερ τινές φασιν.This is another of the evidences showing that there were theorists prior to Aristotle on logical proof; and that his declaration of originality (in the concluding chapter of Sophist. Elenchi) must be taken with reserve.
108Soph. El. xx. p. 177, a. 33-b. 9. οὐ πάντες οἱ ἔλεγχοι παρὰ τὸ διττόν, καθάπερ τινές φασιν.
This is another of the evidences showing that there were theorists prior to Aristotle on logical proof; and that his declaration of originality (in the concluding chapter of Sophist. Elenchi) must be taken with reserve.
109Soph. El. xx. p. 177, b. 10-26: διαιρετέον οὖν τῷ ἀποκρινομένῳ· &c.
109Soph. El. xx. p. 177, b. 10-26: διαιρετέον οὖν τῷ ἀποκρινομένῳ· &c.
The Fallacies of Accent rarely furnish sophistical refutations,110but those ofFigura Dictionisfurnish a great many. When two words have the like form and structure, it may naturally be imagined that the signification of one belongs to the same Category as that of the other. But this is often an illusion; and in such cases a sophistical refutation may be founded thereupon. The respondent will solve it by denying the inference from similarity of form to similarity of meaning, and by distinguishing accurately to which among the ten Categories the meaning of each several word or each proposition belongs. When two words thus seem, by their form, to belong to the same Category, the questioner will often take it for granted, without expressly asking, that they do belong to the same, and will found a confutation thereupon; but the respondent must not admit the confutation to be valid, unless this question has been explicitly put to him and conceded.111A question is put which, in its direct and obvious meaning, bears only on the category of Quantity, of Quality, of Relation, of Action, or of Passion; but the respondent, not aware of the equivocation, answers it in such a manner as to comprehend the Category of Substance, and is so understood by the questioner when he constructs his refutative syllogism. The respondent will secure himself from being thus confuted, by keeping constantly in view to which of the Categories his answer is intended to refer.112
110Ibid. xxi. p. 177, b. 35.
110Ibid. xxi. p. 177, b. 35.
111Ibid. xxii. p. 178, a. 4-28. τὸ γὰρ λοιπὸν αὐτὸς προστίθησιν ὁ ἀκούων ὡς ὁμοίως λεγόμενον· τὸ δὲ λέγεται μὲν οὐχ ὁμοίως, φαίνεται δὲ διὰ τὴν λέξιν.
111Ibid. xxii. p. 178, a. 4-28. τὸ γὰρ λοιπὸν αὐτὸς προστίθησιν ὁ ἀκούων ὡς ὁμοίως λεγόμενον· τὸ δὲ λέγεται μὲν οὐχ ὁμοίως, φαίνεται δὲ διὰ τὴν λέξιν.
112Several illustrative examples of this mode of sophistical refutation, founded on the Fallacy calledFigura Dictionis, are indicated in this chapter by Aristotle. The indication however, is often so brief and elliptical, that there is great difficulty in restoring the fallacies in full, and still greater difficulty in translating them into any modern language.1. Is it possible at the same time to do and to have done the same thing? — No. To see something is to do something; to have seen something is to have done something? — Yes. Is it possible at the same time to see and to have seen the same thing? — Yes.The respondent has thus contradicted himself. The form of the word ὁρᾶν appears to rank it under the Category ποιεῖν. However, I think that the mistake really made here was, that the respondent returned an answer universally negative to the first question.2. Does anything coming under the CategoryPaticome under the CategoryAgere? — No. But τέμνεται, καίεται, αἰσθάνεται, all show by their form that they belong to the CategoryPati? — Yes. Again, λέγειν, τρέχειν, ὁρᾶν, show by their form that they belong to the CategoryAgere? — Yes. You will admit, however, that τὸ ὁρᾶν is αἰσθάνεσθαί τι? — Certainly. Therefore something that belongs to the CategoryAgerebelongs also to that ofPati.If we turn back to Aristot. Categ. viii. p. 11, a. 37, we shall find that he admits the possibility that the same subject may belong to two distinct Categories.3. Did any one write that which stands here written? — Yes. It stands here written that you are standing up — a false statement; but when it was written the statement was true? — Yes. Therefore the writer has written a statement both true and false? — Yes.Heretrueandfalsebelong to the Category Quality; the statement or matter written belongs to that of Substance. What the writer wrote had nothing to do with the former of the two Categories; and no contradiction has been made out by admitting that the statementwasonce true andisnow false.4. Does a man tread that which he walks? — Yes. But he walks the whole day? — Yes. Therefore he treads the whole day.Here the Category ofQuandois confused with that of Substance.5. But the most interesting illustration of this confusion of one Category with another, is furnished by Aristotle in respect of the difference between himself and Plato as to Ideas or Universals. According to Plato the universal term denoted a separate something apart from the particulars, yet of which each of these particulars partook. According to Aristotle it denoted nothing separate from the particulars, but something belonging (essentially or non-essentially) to all and each of the particulars. In the Platonic theory it was anHoc Aliquid(τόδε τι), or had an existence substantive and separate: in the Aristotelian it was aQualeorQuale Quid(ποιόν), having an existence merely adjective or predicative. Aristotle maintains that Plato or the Platonists placed it in the wrong Category — in the Category of Substance instead of in that of Quality.Now it is by rectifying this confusion of Categories that Aristotle solves two argumentative puzzles which he ranks as sophistical:— (1) The argument concluding in what was called the ‘Third Man;’ (2) The following question: Koriskus, and the musical Koriskus — are these the same, or is the second different from the first?What is called the ‘Third Man’ was a refutation of the Platonic theory of Ideas. Because Plato recognized a substantive existence, corresponding to each common denomination connoting likeness, apart from all the similar particulars denominated,e.g., a Self-man, or separate self-existent man, corresponding to the Idea, and apart from all individual men, Caius, &c. — opponents argued against him, saying:— If this is recognized, you must also recognize that the Self-man, and the individual man called Caius, have also a common denomination and similarity, which (upon your principles) corresponds to another Ideal Man, or a Third Man. You must, therefore, go on inferring upwards to a Fourth Man, a Fifth Man, &c., and so onwards to an indefinite number of Ideal Men, one above the other. This was intended as a refutation, byReductio ad Impossibile, of the Platonic view of Ideas as separate Entities, each of them One and Universal. But Aristotle here treats it as a Sophistical Refutation; and he indicates what he calls the solution of it by saying that it confounds the Categories of Substance and Quality, putting the Universal (which ought to be under the Category of Quality) under the Category of Substance. He has no right, however, to include this among Sophistical Refutations, which are (as he himself defines them) not real but fallacious refutations, invented by a dishonest money-getting profession called Sophists, and which are solved by pointing out the precise seat of the fallacy. The refutation called the ‘Third Man’ is so far from being fallacious, that it is valid, and is recited as such elsewhere by Aristotle himself (Metaphs.A.ix. p. 990, b.17);while the solution tendered by Aristotle, instead of being a solution, is a confirmation, pointing out, not where the fallacy of the refutation resides but, where the fallacy of the doctrine refuted resides. Moreover, if we are to treat the refutation called the ‘Third Man’ as sophistical, we must number Plato himself among the dishonest class called Sophists. Here is one among the many proofs that the strong line drawn by Aristotle between the Dialectician and the Sophist is quite untenable. The argument is distinctly enunciated in the Platonic Parmenides (pp. 131-133).The meaning of the Universal (Aristotle maintains) must be considered as predicative only, tacked on to someHoc Aliquid, and belonging toQualeor some other of the nine latter Categories. It may be set out as a distinct subject for logical consideration and reasoning: but it cannot be set out as a distinct existence beyond and apart from its particulars (παρὰ τοὺς πολλοὺς ἕν τι). It is ποιόν, and it cannot even be recognized as ὅπερ ποιόν or αὐτο-ποιόν, for this would put it apart from all the other ποιά, and would be open to the refutation above noticed called the ‘Third Man.’ Such is the drift of the very difficult passage of the Sophistici Elenchi (xxii. p. 178, b. 37-p. 179, a. 10). I differ from Mr. Poste’s translation (p. 71) of part of this passage, and still more from the explanation given in the latter part of his note (p. 155). I think that the doctrine of τὸ ἓν παρὰ τὰ πολλά is produced by Aristotle here and elsewhere in his work as untrue and inadmissible, not as his own doctrine. Mr. Poste understands this passage differently from the previous translators, with whom I agree for the most part, though M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire appears to me to have missed the hinge upon which Aristotle’s argument turns, by translating ὅπερ ποιόν — id ipsum, quod quale est (J. Pacius) — “une qualité:â€� the argument turns upon the distinction between ὅπερ ποιόν and ποιόν.I come now to the second sophistical refutation given by Aristotle: Koriskus, and the musician Koriskus — are the two the same or different? This is what Aristotle calls a sophistical or fallacious argument (compare Metaphys.E.ii. p. 1026, b. 15); but it can hardly be so called with propriety, for the only solution that Aristotle himself gives of it is, that the two areidem numero, but in an improper or secondary sense (Topic. I. vii. p. 103, a. 30);i. e., that they are in one point of view the same, in another point of view different — they are ἓν κατὰ συμβεβηκός. See Arist. Metaph.Δ.vi. p. 1015, b. 16; Scholia, p. 696, a. 22, seq.; and Alexand. Aphrodis. ad Metaph. pp. 321, 322, 414, 415, ed. Bonitz. I understand Aristotle to say that Κόρισκος μουσικός cannot be properlyset outor abstracted (οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτὸ ἐκθέσθαι), because it includes two Categories (Substance and Quality) in one; wherefore it cannot be properly compared either with Κόρισκος simply (Category of Substance) or with μουσικός simply (Category of Quality). It seems strange that Aristotle does not notice this argumentative difficulty in the discussion which he bestows on ταὐτόν in the Seventh Book of the Topica. The subtle reasonings, very hard to follow, which Aristotle employs (Physic. V. iv. p. 227) might have made him cautious in treating the difficulties of opponents as so many dishonest cavils. It is curious that Alexander, in reciting the sophistical argument, assumes as a matter of course that ὁ γραμματικὸς Σωκράτης is ὁ αὐτὸς τῷ Σωκράτει (Schol. ad Metaphys. p. 736, b. 26, Brand.).
112Several illustrative examples of this mode of sophistical refutation, founded on the Fallacy calledFigura Dictionis, are indicated in this chapter by Aristotle. The indication however, is often so brief and elliptical, that there is great difficulty in restoring the fallacies in full, and still greater difficulty in translating them into any modern language.
1. Is it possible at the same time to do and to have done the same thing? — No. To see something is to do something; to have seen something is to have done something? — Yes. Is it possible at the same time to see and to have seen the same thing? — Yes.
The respondent has thus contradicted himself. The form of the word ὁρᾶν appears to rank it under the Category ποιεῖν. However, I think that the mistake really made here was, that the respondent returned an answer universally negative to the first question.
2. Does anything coming under the CategoryPaticome under the CategoryAgere? — No. But τέμνεται, καίεται, αἰσθάνεται, all show by their form that they belong to the CategoryPati? — Yes. Again, λέγειν, τρέχειν, ὁρᾶν, show by their form that they belong to the CategoryAgere? — Yes. You will admit, however, that τὸ ὁρᾶν is αἰσθάνεσθαί τι? — Certainly. Therefore something that belongs to the CategoryAgerebelongs also to that ofPati.
If we turn back to Aristot. Categ. viii. p. 11, a. 37, we shall find that he admits the possibility that the same subject may belong to two distinct Categories.
3. Did any one write that which stands here written? — Yes. It stands here written that you are standing up — a false statement; but when it was written the statement was true? — Yes. Therefore the writer has written a statement both true and false? — Yes.
Heretrueandfalsebelong to the Category Quality; the statement or matter written belongs to that of Substance. What the writer wrote had nothing to do with the former of the two Categories; and no contradiction has been made out by admitting that the statementwasonce true andisnow false.
4. Does a man tread that which he walks? — Yes. But he walks the whole day? — Yes. Therefore he treads the whole day.
Here the Category ofQuandois confused with that of Substance.
5. But the most interesting illustration of this confusion of one Category with another, is furnished by Aristotle in respect of the difference between himself and Plato as to Ideas or Universals. According to Plato the universal term denoted a separate something apart from the particulars, yet of which each of these particulars partook. According to Aristotle it denoted nothing separate from the particulars, but something belonging (essentially or non-essentially) to all and each of the particulars. In the Platonic theory it was anHoc Aliquid(τόδε τι), or had an existence substantive and separate: in the Aristotelian it was aQualeorQuale Quid(ποιόν), having an existence merely adjective or predicative. Aristotle maintains that Plato or the Platonists placed it in the wrong Category — in the Category of Substance instead of in that of Quality.
Now it is by rectifying this confusion of Categories that Aristotle solves two argumentative puzzles which he ranks as sophistical:— (1) The argument concluding in what was called the ‘Third Man;’ (2) The following question: Koriskus, and the musical Koriskus — are these the same, or is the second different from the first?
What is called the ‘Third Man’ was a refutation of the Platonic theory of Ideas. Because Plato recognized a substantive existence, corresponding to each common denomination connoting likeness, apart from all the similar particulars denominated,e.g., a Self-man, or separate self-existent man, corresponding to the Idea, and apart from all individual men, Caius, &c. — opponents argued against him, saying:— If this is recognized, you must also recognize that the Self-man, and the individual man called Caius, have also a common denomination and similarity, which (upon your principles) corresponds to another Ideal Man, or a Third Man. You must, therefore, go on inferring upwards to a Fourth Man, a Fifth Man, &c., and so onwards to an indefinite number of Ideal Men, one above the other. This was intended as a refutation, byReductio ad Impossibile, of the Platonic view of Ideas as separate Entities, each of them One and Universal. But Aristotle here treats it as a Sophistical Refutation; and he indicates what he calls the solution of it by saying that it confounds the Categories of Substance and Quality, putting the Universal (which ought to be under the Category of Quality) under the Category of Substance. He has no right, however, to include this among Sophistical Refutations, which are (as he himself defines them) not real but fallacious refutations, invented by a dishonest money-getting profession called Sophists, and which are solved by pointing out the precise seat of the fallacy. The refutation called the ‘Third Man’ is so far from being fallacious, that it is valid, and is recited as such elsewhere by Aristotle himself (Metaphs.A.ix. p. 990, b.17);while the solution tendered by Aristotle, instead of being a solution, is a confirmation, pointing out, not where the fallacy of the refutation resides but, where the fallacy of the doctrine refuted resides. Moreover, if we are to treat the refutation called the ‘Third Man’ as sophistical, we must number Plato himself among the dishonest class called Sophists. Here is one among the many proofs that the strong line drawn by Aristotle between the Dialectician and the Sophist is quite untenable. The argument is distinctly enunciated in the Platonic Parmenides (pp. 131-133).
The meaning of the Universal (Aristotle maintains) must be considered as predicative only, tacked on to someHoc Aliquid, and belonging toQualeor some other of the nine latter Categories. It may be set out as a distinct subject for logical consideration and reasoning: but it cannot be set out as a distinct existence beyond and apart from its particulars (παρὰ τοὺς πολλοὺς ἕν τι). It is ποιόν, and it cannot even be recognized as ὅπερ ποιόν or αὐτο-ποιόν, for this would put it apart from all the other ποιά, and would be open to the refutation above noticed called the ‘Third Man.’ Such is the drift of the very difficult passage of the Sophistici Elenchi (xxii. p. 178, b. 37-p. 179, a. 10). I differ from Mr. Poste’s translation (p. 71) of part of this passage, and still more from the explanation given in the latter part of his note (p. 155). I think that the doctrine of τὸ ἓν παρὰ τὰ πολλά is produced by Aristotle here and elsewhere in his work as untrue and inadmissible, not as his own doctrine. Mr. Poste understands this passage differently from the previous translators, with whom I agree for the most part, though M. Barthélemy St. Hilaire appears to me to have missed the hinge upon which Aristotle’s argument turns, by translating ὅπερ ποιόν — id ipsum, quod quale est (J. Pacius) — “une qualité:â€� the argument turns upon the distinction between ὅπερ ποιόν and ποιόν.
I come now to the second sophistical refutation given by Aristotle: Koriskus, and the musician Koriskus — are the two the same or different? This is what Aristotle calls a sophistical or fallacious argument (compare Metaphys.E.ii. p. 1026, b. 15); but it can hardly be so called with propriety, for the only solution that Aristotle himself gives of it is, that the two areidem numero, but in an improper or secondary sense (Topic. I. vii. p. 103, a. 30);i. e., that they are in one point of view the same, in another point of view different — they are ἓν κατὰ συμβεβηκός. See Arist. Metaph.Δ.vi. p. 1015, b. 16; Scholia, p. 696, a. 22, seq.; and Alexand. Aphrodis. ad Metaph. pp. 321, 322, 414, 415, ed. Bonitz. I understand Aristotle to say that Κόρισκος μουσικός cannot be properlyset outor abstracted (οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτὸ ἐκθέσθαι), because it includes two Categories (Substance and Quality) in one; wherefore it cannot be properly compared either with Κόρισκος simply (Category of Substance) or with μουσικός simply (Category of Quality). It seems strange that Aristotle does not notice this argumentative difficulty in the discussion which he bestows on ταὐτόν in the Seventh Book of the Topica. The subtle reasonings, very hard to follow, which Aristotle employs (Physic. V. iv. p. 227) might have made him cautious in treating the difficulties of opponents as so many dishonest cavils. It is curious that Alexander, in reciting the sophistical argument, assumes as a matter of course that ὁ γραμματικὸς Σωκράτης is ὁ αὐτὸς τῷ Σωκράτει (Schol. ad Metaphys. p. 736, b. 26, Brand.).
As a general rule, in all the refutations founded on the seven FallaciesIn Dictione, the respondent will solve the refutationby distinguishing the double meaning of the words or of the phrase, and by adopting as his own the one opposite to that which the questioner proceeds upon. If the Fallacy is of Conjunction and Disjunction, and if the questioner assumes Conjunction, the respondent will adopt Disjunction; if it be a Fallacy of Accent, and if the questioner assumes the grave accent, the respondent will adopt the acute.113
113Soph. El. xxiii. p. 179, a. 11-25.
113Soph. El. xxiii. p. 179, a. 11-25.
Passing to the FallaciesExtra Dictionem, where the sophistical refutation is founded upon a Fallacy of Accident, the respondent ought to apply one and the same solution to all. He will say:“The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premisses�; and he will be prepared with an example, in which the conclusion obtained under this fallacy is notoriously untrue.114“Do you know Koriskus?� — “Yes.� “Do you know the distant person coming this way?� — “No.� “That distant person is Koriskus: therefore you know, and you do not know, the same person.� The inference here is not necessary. To be coming this way — is an accident of Koriskus; and, because you do not know the accident, we cannot infer that you do not know the subject; such may or may not be the case.115
114Soph. El. xxiv. p. 179, a. 30: ῥητέον οὖν συμβιβασθέντας ὁμοίως πρὸς ἅπαντας ὅτι οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον· ἔχειν δὲ δεῖ προφέρειν τὸ οἷον.
114Soph. El. xxiv. p. 179, a. 30: ῥητέον οὖν συμβιβασθέντας ὁμοίως πρὸς ἅπαντας ὅτι οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον· ἔχειν δὲ δεῖ προφέρειν τὸ οἷον.
115Ibid. a. 35-b. 7.
115Ibid. a. 35-b. 7.
The major premiss upon which the preceding sophistical refutation must rest, is, That it is impossible both to know and not to know the same thing. This must be put as a direct question by the questioner, and must be conceded by the respondent, before the intended refutation can be made good. Now there are some persons who solve the refutation by answering this question in the negative, and by saying that it is possible both to know and not to know the same thing, only not in the same respect: such is the case when we know Koriskus, but do not know Koriskus approaching from a distance.116Aristotle disapproves this mode of solution, as well as another mode which refers the fallacy to equivocation of terms. He points out that there are many other sophistical refutations, coming under the general head ofFallaciæ Accidentis, to which such solution will not apply; and that there ought to be one uniform mode of solution applicable to every fallacy coming under the same general head; though he admits at the same time that particular sophistical refutations may be vicious in more than one way. He says, moreover, that this contradiction or negation of the premiss is no true solution; for a solution ought to bring to view clearly the reason why the fallacious refutation appears to be a real refutation. Thus theFallacia Accidentisconsists in an inference that what is true of an accident is true also of the subject thereof: you explain that such inference, though apparently cogent, has no real cogency, and in that explanation consists the only proper solution of the fallacy.117
116Ibid. b. 7, 18, 37: λύουσι δέ τινες ἀναιροῦντες τὴν ἐρώτησιν· φασὶ γὰρ ἐνδέχεσθαι ταὐτὸ πρᾶγμα εἰδέναι καὶ ἀγνοεῖν, ἀλλὰ μὴ κατὰ ταὐτό.Mr. Poste (pp. 152-157) translates ἀναιροῦντες τὴν ἐρώτησιν — “contradicting the thesis,â€� and he expresses his surprise at the assertion, observing (very truly) that contradiction of the thesis is the very opposite of a solution; it helps in the very work which the refutation aims at accomplishing. But I cannot think that ἐρώτησις does mean “the thesis,â€� either here or in the other passage to which Mr. Poste refers (xxii. p. 178, b. 14). I think it means a premiss which the respondent has conceded, or must be presumed to have conceded, essential to the validity of the refutation. The term ἐρώτησις cannot surely, with any propriety, be applied to the thesis. It means either a question, or what is conceded in reply to a question; and thethesiscannot come under either one meaning or the other, being the proposition which the respondent sets out by affirming and undertakes to defend.
116Ibid. b. 7, 18, 37: λύουσι δέ τινες ἀναιροῦντες τὴν ἐρώτησιν· φασὶ γὰρ ἐνδέχεσθαι ταὐτὸ πρᾶγμα εἰδέναι καὶ ἀγνοεῖν, ἀλλὰ μὴ κατὰ ταὐτό.
Mr. Poste (pp. 152-157) translates ἀναιροῦντες τὴν ἐρώτησιν — “contradicting the thesis,â€� and he expresses his surprise at the assertion, observing (very truly) that contradiction of the thesis is the very opposite of a solution; it helps in the very work which the refutation aims at accomplishing. But I cannot think that ἐρώτησις does mean “the thesis,â€� either here or in the other passage to which Mr. Poste refers (xxii. p. 178, b. 14). I think it means a premiss which the respondent has conceded, or must be presumed to have conceded, essential to the validity of the refutation. The term ἐρώτησις cannot surely, with any propriety, be applied to the thesis. It means either a question, or what is conceded in reply to a question; and thethesiscannot come under either one meaning or the other, being the proposition which the respondent sets out by affirming and undertakes to defend.
117Soph. El. xxiv. p. 179, b. 23: ἦν γὰρ ἡ λύσις ἐμφάνισις ψευδοῦς συλλογισμοῦ, παρ’ ὃ ψευδής.
117Soph. El. xxiv. p. 179, b. 23: ἦν γὰρ ἡ λύσις ἐμφάνισις ψευδοῦς συλλογισμοῦ, παρ’ ὃ ψευδής.
In like manner, all those Fallacies which come under the general head ofA dicto Secundum Quid ad dictum Simpliciter, can only be solved by pointing out, in each particular case, in what terms this confusion is concealed — wherein resides the inference apparently cogent which is mistaken for one really cogent. The respondent is driven to an apparent contradiction, by having granted premisses from which the inference is derivable that both sides of theAntiphasisare true — that the same predicate A may be both affirmed and denied of the same subject B. He solves the contradiction by analysing theAntiphasis, and by showing that affirmation issecundum quid, while denial issimpliciter; and that there is a contradiction not real, but only apparent, between the two.118