VII.

340Ibid. a. 32-b. 2.

36. Perhaps the definiend is not sufficiently well known to enable you to attack the definition as a whole, but you may find arguments against one or other of its parts; this is sufficient to upset it. If it be obscure and unintelligible, you should help to correct and re-model it until it becomes clear; you will then see what are the really assailable points in it. When you indicate and expose the obscurity, the respondent must either substitute some clearer exposition of his own meaning, or else he must acquiesce in that which you proposeas substitute.341If the improved definition which you propose is obviously clearer and better, his previous definition is of course put out of court; since there cannot be several definitions of the same subject.342

341Topic. VI. xiv. p. 151, b. 3-11. ὅσοι τâ€™ ἀσαφεῖς τῶν ὁρισμῶν, συνδιορθώσαντα καὶ συσχηματίσαντα πρὸς τὸ δηλοῦν τι καὶ ἔχειν ἐπιχείρημα, οὕτως ἐπισκοπεῖνÂ· ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ τῷ ἀποκρινομένῳ ἢ δέχεσθαι τὸ ἐκλαμβανόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐρωτῶντος, ἢ αὐτὸν διασαφῆσαι τί ποτε τυγχάνει τὸ δηλούμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου.

342Ibid. b. 12-17.

To conclude, one suggestion may be given bearing upon all the arguments that you have to carry on against definitions tendered by respondents:â€” Reflect on the definiend, and frame a definition of it for yourself, as cleverly as you can at the moment; or call to mind any good definition of it which you may have heard before. This will serve you as a standard with which to compare the definition tendered, so that you will see at once what there is in it either defective or redundant, and where you can find arguments against it.343

343Ibid. b. 18-23. ἀνάγκη γὰρ, ὥσπερ πρὸς παράδειγμα θεώμενον, τό τâ€™ ἐλλεῖπον ὧν προσῆκεν ἔχειν τὸν ὁρισμὸν καὶ τὸ προσκείμενον περιέργως καθορᾶν, ὥστε μᾶλλον ἐπιχειρημάτων εὐπορεῖν.

In the Seventh Book of the Topica Aristotle continues his review of the manner of debating theses which profess to define, but enters also on a collateral question connected with that discussion: viz., By what arguments are we to determine whether two Subjects or Predicates are the sameNumero(modo maxime proprio), as distinguished from being the same merelySpecieorGenere? To measure the extent of identity between any two subjects, is important towards the attack and defence of a definition.344

344Ibid. VII. i. p. 151, b. 28: πότερον δὲ ταὐτὸν ἢ ἕτερον κατὰ τὸν κυριώτατον τῶν ῥηθέντων περὶ ταὐτοῦ τρόπων (ἐλέγετο δὲ κυριώτατα ταὐτὸν τὸ τῷ ἀριθμῷ ἕν) &c.

Two subjects (A and B) being affirmed as the samenumero, you may test this by examining the Derivatives, the Co-ordinates, and the Opposites, of each. Thus, if courage is identical with justice, the courageous man will be identical with the just man; courageously will be identical with justly. Likewise, the opposite of courage (in all the four modes of Opposition) will be identical with the opposite of justice. Then, again, the generators and destroyers, the generations and destructions, of courage, will be identical with those of justice.345If there be any predicate applied to courage in the superlative degree, the same predicatewill also be applied to justice in the superlative degree.346If there be a third subject C with which A is identical, B also will be identical therewith. The same attributes predicable of A will also be predicable of B; and, if the two be attributes, each will be predicable of the same subjects of which the other is predicable. Both will be comprised in the same Category, and will have the same genus and differentia. Both will increase or diminish under the same circumstances. Each, when added to or subtracted from any third subject, will yield the same result.347

345Ibid. p. 152, a. 2.

346Topic. VII. p. 152, a. 5-30: σκοπεῖν δὲ καὶ ὧν θάτερον μάλιστα λέγεται ὁτιοῦν, εἰ καὶ θάτερον τῶν αὐτων τούτων κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ μάλιστα λέγεται, καθάπερ Ξενοκράτης τὸν εὐδαίμονα βίον καὶ τὸν σπουδαῖον ἀποδείκνυσι τὸν αὐτόν, ἐπειδὴ πάντων τῶν βίων αἱρετώτατος ὁ σπουδαῖος καὶ ὁ εὐδαίμωνÂ· ἓν γὰρ τὸ αἱρετώτατον καὶ τὸ μέγιστονÂ· &c.Aristotle remarks that Xenokrates here carried his inference too far: that the application of the same superlative predicate to A and B affords indeed a presumption that they areIdem numero, but not a conclusive proof thereof; that the predicate might be applied in like manner, if B were a species comprised in A as genus.Xenokrates made the mistake of drawing an affirmative conclusion from syllogistic premisses in the Second figure.

Aristotle remarks that Xenokrates here carried his inference too far: that the application of the same superlative predicate to A and B affords indeed a presumption that they areIdem numero, but not a conclusive proof thereof; that the predicate might be applied in like manner, if B were a species comprised in A as genus.

Xenokrates made the mistake of drawing an affirmative conclusion from syllogistic premisses in the Second figure.

347Topic. VII. i. p. 152, a. 31-b. 16.

Farther, in examining the thesis (A is identicalnumerowith B) you must look not merely whether it involves actually any impossible consequences, but also whether any cases can be imagined in which it would involve such;348whether the identity is not merelyspecieorgenere; finally, whether the one can exist without the other.349

348Ibid. b. 17-24. Aristotle illustrates thislocusas follows:â€” Some say that to bevoid, and to befull of air, are the same. But suppose the air to be drawn away; then the place will no longer be full of air, yet it will still be void, even more than it was before. One of the two terms declared to be identical is thus withdrawn, while the other remains. Accordingly, the two are not really identical. This illustration fits better to the principle laid down, b. 34: εἰ δύνατον θάτερον ἄνευ θατέρου εἶναιÂ· οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἴη ταὐτόν.

349Ibid. b. 25-35.

Such are the variouslociavailable for argument against the thesis affirming the equivocal predicatesame. All of them may be useful when you are impugning a definition; for the characteristic of this is to declare that the defining proposition is equivalent or identical with the defined name; and, if you can disprove such identity, you upset the definition. But theselociwill be of little avail, if your task is to defend or uphold a definition; for, even if you succeed in establishing the above-mentioned identity, the definition may still be open to attack for other weaknesses or defects.350

350Ibid. ii. p. 152, b. 36-p. 158, a. 5. ἅπαντες οἱ πρὸς ταὐτὸν ἀνασκευαστικοὶ τόποι καὶ πρὸς ὅρον χρήσιμοι â€” τῶν δὲ κατασκευαστικῶν τόπων οὐδεὶς χρήσιμος πρὸς ὅρονÂ· &c.

To uphold, or prove by way of syllogism, requires a different procedure. It is a task hard, but not impossible. Most disputants assume without proving their definition, in the sameway as the teachers of Geometry and Arithmetic do in their respective sciences. Aristotle tells us that he does not here intend to give a didactic exposition of Definition, nor of the proper way of defining accurately or scientifically. To do this (he says) belongs to the province of Analytic; while in the present treatise he is dealing merely with Dialectic. For the purposes, then, of Dialectic, he declares that syllogistic proof of a definition is practicable, inasmuch as the definition is only a proposition declaring what is essential to the definiend; and nothing is essential except genus (or genera) and differentiÃ¦.351

351Topic. VII. iii. p. 153, a. 6-22. Compare Analyt. Post. II. iii.-x., where the theory of Scientific Definition is elaborately worked out; supra, Vol. I. ch. viii.pp. 346-353.

Towards the establishment of the definition which you have to defend, you may find arguments by examining the Contraries and Opposites of the component terms, and of the defining proposition. If the opposite of the definition is allowed as defining properly the opposite of the definiend, you may argue from hence that your own definition is a good one.352If you can show that there is declared in your definition a partial correspondence of contraries either separately in the genus, or separately in the differentia, you have a certain force of argument in your favour; and, if you can make out both the two separately, this will suffice for your entire definition.353You may also draw arguments from the Derivatives, or Co-ordinates of your own terms; from Analogous Terms, or from Comparates (More or Less). If the definition of any one of these is granted to you, an argument is furnished for the defence of an analogous definition in the case of your own term. If it is conceded as a good definition that forgetfulness is â€” the casting away of knowledge, then the definition must also hold good that to forget is â€” to cast away knowledge. If destruction is admitted to be well defined â€” dissolution of essence, then to be destroyed is well defined â€” to be dissolved as to essence. If the wholesome may be defined â€” that which is productive of health, then also the profitable may be defined â€” that which is productive of good; that is, if the declaration of the special end makes a good definition in one case, so it will also in the other.354

352Ibid. a. 28: εἰ γὰρ ὁ ἀντικείμενος τοῦ ἀντικειμένου, καὶ τὸν εἰρημένου τοῦ προκειμένου ἀνάγκη εἶναι (ὅρον).

353Ibid. b. 14: καθόλου δâ€™ εἰπεῖν, ἐπεὶ ὁ ὁρισμός ἐστιν ἐκ γένους καὶ διαφορῶν, ἂν ὁ τοῦ ἐναντίου ὁρισμὸς φανερὸς ᾖ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ προκειμένου ὁρισμὸς φανερὸς ἔσται.

354Topic. VII. iii. p. 153, b. 25-p. 154, a. 11: ἔτι ἐκ τῶν πτώσεων καὶ τῶν συστοίχωνÂ· ἀνάγκη ἀκολουθεῖν τὰ γένη τοῖς γένεσιν καὶ τοὺς ὅρους τοῖς ὅροις. â€” ἑνὸς οὖν ὁποιουοῦν τῶν εἰρημένων ὁμοληθέντος, ἀνάγκη κὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ὁμολογεῖσθαι. â€” καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίως ἐχόντων πρὸς ἄλληλα â€” ὁμοίως γὰρ ἕκαστον τῶν εἰρημένων πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον τέλος ἔχει.

Theseloci, fromAnaloga, from Derivatives, from Conjugates, are of the most frequent avail in dialectical debates or definitions. The disputant must acquire promptitude in the employment of them. He must learn, moreover, to test a definition tendered to him by calling to mind particulars and sub-species, so as to determine whether the definition fits them all. Such a procedure will be found especially serviceable in debate with one who upholds the Platonic Ideas. Care must also be taken to see whether the definiend is distorted from its proper signification, or whether it is used in defining itself.355

355Topic. VII. iv. p. 154, a. 12-22.

These last observations are addressed to the questioner or assailant of the definition. We have already seen however that his task is comparatively easy; the grand difficulty is to defend a definition. The respondent cannot at once see what he ought to aim at; and, even when he does see it, he has farther difficulty in obtaining the requisite concessions from his opponent, who may decline to grant that the two parts of the definition tendered are really the genus and differentia of the definiend; while, if there be any thing besides these two parts contained in the essence of the definiend, there is an excuse for declining to grant it.356The opponent succeeds, if he can establish one single contradictory instance; accordingly, a syllogism with particular conclusion will serve his purpose. The respondent on the other hand, must meet each one of these instances, must establish an universal conclusion, and must show that his definition reciprocates with the definiend, so that, wherever the latter is predicable, the former is predicable likewise, and not in any other case whatever.357

356Topic. VII. v. p. 154, a. 23, seq. καὶ γὰρ ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ λαβεῖν παρὰ τῶν ἐρωτωμένων τὰς τοιαύτας προτάσεις οὐκ εὐπετές, &c.

357Ibid. a. 32-b. 12.

So much greater are the difficulties belonging to the defence of a Definition, as compared with the attack upon it; and the same may be said about attack and defence of a Proprium, and of a Genus. In both cases, the assailant will carry his point, if he can show that the predicate in question is not predicable, in this relation, of all, or that it is not predicable, in this relation, of any one. But the defendant is required to make good the universal against every separate objection advanced against any one of the particulars. It is a general rule, that the work of destruction is easier than that of construction; and the present cases come under that rule.358The hardest of all theses to defend,and the easiest to overthrow, is where Definition is affirmed; for the respondent in this case is required to declare well the essence of his subject, and he stands in need of the greatest number of auxiliary data; while all theLocifor attack, even those properly belonging to the Proprium, the Genus, and the Accident, are available against him.359Next in order, as regards difficulty of defence, comes the theses affirming Proprium; where the respondent has to make out, not merely that the predicate belongs to the subject, but that it belongs thereunto exclusively and reciprocally: here also all theLocifor attack, even those properly belonging to Accident, are available.360Easiest of all theses to defend, while it is the hardest to impugn, is that in which Accident alone is affirmed â€” the naked fact, that the predicate A belongs to the Subject B, without investing it with the character either of Genus or Proprium. Here what is affirmed is a minimum, requiring the smallest array of data to be conceded; moreover, theLociavailable for attack are the fewest, since many of those which may be employed against Genus, Proprium, and Definition, have no application against a thesis affirming merely Accident.361Indeed, if the thesis affirmed be only a proposition particular (and not universal), affirming Accident (and nothing more), the task of refuting it will be more difficult than that of maintaining it.362

358Ibid. b. 13-32. ἔοικε δâ€™, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις τὸ διαφθεῖραι τοῖ ποιῆσαι ῥᾷον, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων τὸ ἀνασκευάσαι τοῦ κατασκευάσαι.

359Topic. VII. v. p. 155, a. 3-21: φανερὸν δὲ καὶ διότι πάντων ῥᾷστον ὅρον ἀνασκευάσαι.

360Ibid. a. 23-27. Aristotle has in view the most complete Proprium: belongingomni,soli,et semper.

361Ibid. a. 28-36: ῥᾷστον δὲ πάντων κατασκευάσαι τὸ συμβεβηκόςÂ· â€” ἀνασκευάζειν δὲ χαλεπώτατον τὸ συμβεβηκός, ὅτι ἐλάχιστα ἐν αὐτῷ δέδοται, &c.

362Ibid. p. 154, b. 36-p. 155, a. 2: τὸ δâ€™ ἐπὶ μέρους ἀνάπαλιν ῥᾷον κατασκευάσαι ἢ ἀνασκευάσαιÂ· κατασκευάζοντι μὲν γὰρ ἀπόχρη δεῖξαι τινὶ ὑπάρχον, ἀνασκευάζοντι δὲ δεικτέον ὅτι οὐδενὶ ὑπάρχει.

The Eighth Book of the Topica brings our attention back to the general considerations contained in the First. In the intervening part of the treatise we have had the quadruple distribution of dialectical problems, with the enumeration of thoseLociof argument which bear upon each or all: we are now invited to study the application of these distinctions in practice, and with this view to look once more both at the persons and the purposes of dialectical debate. What is the order of procedure most suitable, first, for the questioner or assailant; next, for the respondent or defender?363This order of procedure marksthe distinctive line of separation between the dialectician and the man of science or philosopher: to both of them theLociof arguments are alike available, though each of them deals with those arguments in his own way, and in an arrangement suitable for his purpose.364The dialectician, being engaged in debate, must shape his questions, and regulate his march as questioner, according to the concessions obtained or likely to be obtained from his respondent; who, if a question be asked having an obvious refutative bearing on the thesis, will foresee the consequences of answering in the affirmative, and will refuse to grant what is asked. On the contrary, the philosopher, who pursues investigation with a view to his own satisfaction alone, is under no similar restriction. He looks out at once for such premisses as conduct straight to a conclusion; and, the more obvious their bearing on the conclusion is, the more scientific will the syllogism be, and the better will he be pleased.365

363Ibid. VIII. i. p. 155, b. 3: μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα περὶ τάξεως, καὶ πῶς δεῖ ἐρωτᾶν, λεκτέον.

364Topic. VIII. i. p. 155, b. 7: μέχρι μὲν οὖν τοῦ εὑρεῖν τὸν τόπον, ὁμοίως τοῦ φιλοσόφου καὶ τοῦ διαλεκτικοῦ ἡ σκέψις, τὸ δâ€™ ἤδη ταῦτα τάττειν καὶ ἐρωτηματίζειν ἴδιον τοῦ διαλεκτικοῦ.

365Ibid. b. 10-16.

In thepraxis dialectica(as has already been stated) two talkers are assumed â€” the respondent who sets up a thesis which he undertakes to defend, and a questioner who interrogates with a view to impugn it; or at least with a view to compel the other to answer in an inconsistent or contradictory manner. We are to assume, farther, a circle of listeners, who serve to a certain extent as guarantees against any breach of the rules of debate.366Three distinct purposes may be supposed in the debate. 1. You as a questioner may be a teacher, and the respondent a learner; your purpose is to teach what you know, while he wishes to learn from you what he does not know. 2. You engage in an intellectual contest or duel with the respondent, each of you seeking only victory over the other, though subject on both sides to observance of the rules of debate. 3. You neither seek to teach, nor to conquer; you and the respondent have both the same purpose â€” to test the argumentative consequences of different admissions, and to acquire a larger command of the chains of reasoningproandcon, bearing on some given topic.367

366Ibid. ii. p. 158, a. 10.

367Ibid. v. p. 159, a. 26: οὐ γὰρ οἱ αὐτοὶ σκοποὶ τοῖς διδάσκουσιν ἢ μανθάνουσι καὶ τοῖς ἀγνωνιζομένοις, οὐδὲ τούτοις τε καὶ τοῖς διατρίβουσι μετâ€™ ἀλλήλων σκέψις χάριν.

According as the aim of the talkers is one or other of these three, the good or bad conduct of the dialogue, on the part both of questioner and of respondent, must be differently appreciated. Of each of the three, specimens may be found in Plato, though not carefully severed but running one into the other. Aristotleappears to have been the first to formulate the distinction theoretically, and to prescribe for the practice of each separately. He tells us particularly that no one before him had clearly distinguished the third head, and prescribed for it apart from the second. The merit of having first done this he expressly claims for the Topica.368

368Topic. VIII. v. p. 159, a. 25-37: ἐπεὶ δâ€™ ἐστὶν ἀδιόριστα τοῖς γυμνασίας καὶ πείρας ἕνεκα τοὺς λόγους ποιουμένοις â€” ἐν δὲ ταῖς διαλεκτικαῖς συνόδοις τοῖς μὴ ἀγῶνος χάριν ἀλλὰ πείρας καὶ σκέψεως τοὺς λόγουςποιουμένοις, οὐδιήρθρωταίπω τίνος δεῖ στοχάζεσθαι τὸν ἀποκρινόμενον καὶ ὁποῖα διδόναι καὶ ποῖα μή, πρὸς τὸ καλῶς ἢ μὴ καλῶς φυλάττειν τὴν θέσιν.ἐπεὶ οὖν οὐδὲν ἔχομεν παραδεδομένον ὑπâ€™ ἄλλων,αὐτοί τι πειραθῶμεν εἰπεῖν.

Both the questioner and the respondent have a duty towards the dialogue; their common purpose is to conduct it well, not only obeying the peremptory rules, but displaying, over and above, skill for the attainment of their separate ends. Under the first and third heads, both may be alike successful. Under the second or contentious head, indeed, one only of the two can gain the victory; yet, still, even the defeated party may exhibit the maximum of skill which his position admits. This is sufficient for his credit; so that the common work will still be well performed.369But a partner who performs his own part so as to obstruct instead of forwarding this common work â€” who conducts the debate in a spirit of ill-tempered contention rather than of regular Dialectic â€” deserves censure.370

369Ibid. xi. p. 161, a. 19-b. 10: οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐπὶ θατέρῳ μόνον τὸ λαλῶς ἐπιτελεσθῆναι τὸ κοινὸν ἔργον â€” ἐπεὶ δὲ φαῦλος κοινωνὸς ὁ ἐμποδίζων τὸ κοινὸν ἔργον, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἐν λόγῳ. Compare Topica, I. iii. p. 101, b. 8.

370Ibid. a. 33: διαλεκτικῶς καὶμὴἐριστικῶς. â€” b. 2-18.

Having thus in view the dialogue as a partnership for common profit, Aristotle administers counsel to the questioning as well as to the responding partner. You as questioner have to deal with a thesis set up by the respondent. You see at once what the syllogism is that is required to prove the contrary or contradictory of that thesis; and your business is so to shape your questions as to induce the respondent to concede the premisses necessary towards that syllogism. If you ask him at once and directly to concede these premisses, he sees your drift and answers in the negative. You must therefore begin your approaches from a greater distance. You must ask questions bearing only indirectly and remotely upon your ultimate conclusion.371These outlying and preparatory questions will fall under four principal heads. Either (1) they will be inductive particulars, multiplied in order that you may obtain assent toan universal comprising them all; or (2) they will be put for the purpose of giving dignity to your discourse; or (3) they will be shaped with a view to conceal or keep out of sight the ultimate conclusion that you aim at; or (4), lastly, they will be introduced to make your whole argument clearer.372The third of these four general heads â€” the head of questions for the purpose of concealment â€” comes out principally in dialectical contests for victory. In those it is of supreme importance, and the result depends much on the employment of it; but even in other dialectical debates you must employ it to a certain extent.373

371Topic. VIII. i. p. 155, b. 29: τὰς μὲν οὖν ἀναγκαίας, διâ€™ ὧν ὁ συλλογισμός, οὐκ εὐθὺς αὐτὰς προτατέον, ἀλλâ€™ ἀποστατέον ὅτι ἀνωτάτω, &c.

372Topic. VIII. i. p. 155, b. 20.

373Ibid. b. 26.

Aristotle goes at great length into the means of Concealment. Suppose the proposition which you desire to get conceded is, The science of two contraries is the same. You will find it useful to commence by a question more general:e.g., Is the science of two opposites the same? If the respondent answers in the affirmative, you will deduce from his concession, by syllogism, the conclusion which you desire. If he answers in the negative, you must then try to arrive at your end by a string of questions respecting particular contraries or opposites; which if the respondent grants successively, you will bring in your general question ultimately as the inductive result from those concessions.374Your particulars must be selected from obvious matters of sense and notoriety. You are likely to obtain in this way admissions which will serve as premisses for several different prosyllogisms, not indeed sufficient by themselves, yet valuable as conditions and preliminaries to the final syllogism whereby the thesis is refuted. For, when the questions are put in this way, the respondent will not see your drift nor the consequences of his own concessions; so that he will more readily concede what you want.375The better to conceal your purpose, you will refrain from drawing out any of these prosyllogisms clearly at once; you will not even put the major and minor premiss of any one of them in immediate sequence; but you will confound the order of them intentionally, stating first a premiss belonging to one, and next a premiss belonging to another.376The respondent, thus kept in the dark, answers in the affirmative to each of your questions successively. At length you find that you have obtained a sufficient number of concessions from him,to enable you to prove the syllogism contradictory of his thesis. You inform him of this; and it shows the perfect skill and success of your procedure, when he expresses surprise at the announcement, and asks on what premisses you reckon.377

374Ibid. b. 34: ἂν δὲ μὴ τιθῇ, διâ€™ ἐπαγωγῆς ληπτέον, προτείναντα ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἐναντίων.

375Ibid. p. 156, a. 7: κρύπτοντα δὲ προσυλλογίζεσθαι διâ€™ ὧν ὁ συλλογισμὸς τοῦ ἐξ ἀρχῆς μέλλει γίνεσθαι, καὶ ταῦτα ὡς πλεῖστα.

376Ibid. a. 23: χρήσιμον δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ συνεχῆ τὰ ἀξιώματα λαμβάνειν ἐξ ὧν οἱ συλλογισμοί, ἀλλâ€™ ἐναλλὰξ τὸ πρὸς ἕτερον καὶ ἕτερον συμπέρασμα.

377Topic. VIII. i. p. 156, a. 13: καθόλου δâ€™ εἰπεῖν, οὕτω δεῖ ἐρωτᾶν τὸν κρυπτικῶς πυνθανόμενον, ὥστâ€™ ἠρωτημένου τοῦ παντὸς λόγου καὶ εἰπόντος τὸ συμπέρασμα ζητεῖσθαι τὸ διὰ τί.

There are also other manÅ“uvres serving your purpose of concealment, and preventing the respondent from seeing beforehand the full pertinence of your questions. Thus, if you wish to obtain the definition of your major, you will do well to ask the definition, not of the term itself but, of some one among its conjugates. You will put your question, as if the answer were of little importance in itself, and as if you did not care whether it was given in the affirmative or in the negative;378you will sometimes even suggest objections to that which you are seeming to aim at. All this will give you the air of a candid disputant; it will throw the respondent off his guard, and make him more ready to answer as he really thinks, without alarm for the consequences.379When you wish to get a certain premiss conceded, you will put the question first upon a different premiss analogous to it. In putting your question, you will add that the answer which you desire is a matter of course, familiar and admitted by every one; for respondents are shy of contradicting any received belief, unless they have present to their minds a clear instance adverse to it.380You will never manifest apparent earnestness about an answer; which would make the respondent less willing to concede it.381You will postpone until the last the premiss which you wish to obtain, and will begin by putting questions the answers to which serve as remote premisses behind it, only in the end conducting to it as consequence. Generally speaking, questioners do the reverse, putting first the questions about which they are most anxious; while most respondents, aware of this habit, are most intractable in regard to the first questions, except some presumptuous and ill-tempered disputants, who concede what is asked at first but afterwards become obstinate in denegation.382You will throw in some irrelevant questions with a view to lengthen the procedure, likefallacious geometers who complicate a diagram by drawing unnecessary lines. Amidst a multitude of premisses falsehood is more likely to escape detection; and thus, also, you may perhaps be able to slip in, unperceived and in a corner, some important premiss, which, if put as a separate question by itself, would certainly not have been granted.383

Back to Index Next