On Sophistical Refutations on Coming-To-Be and Passing-Away on the Cosmos
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY FOUNDED BY JAMES LOEB, LL.D. EDITED BY t T. E. PAGE, C.H., LITT.D. t E. CAPPS, PH.D., LL.D. t W. H. D. ROUSE, litt.d. L, A. POST, M.A. E. H. WARMINGTON, m.a., f.r.hist.soc. ARISTOTLE ON SOPHISTICAL REFUTATIONS ON COMING-TO-BE AND PASSING-AWAY ON THE COSMOS ARIS^ JTLE.s4'^ /// ON SOPHISTICAL REFUTATIONS ON COMING-TO-BE AND PASSING-AWAY BY IE. S. FORSTER, M.A. KMERlTUb PROFESSOR OF OREF.K IN THF. UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD ON THE COSMOS BY D. J. FURLEY, M.A. LEC'TORER IN OREEK AND LATIN IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON LONDON WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS MCMLV 1?p> 625842 ?8. /I. Sy Printed in Great liritain CONTENTS PREFATORY NOTE Professor E. S. Forster completed his versions of De Sophisticis Elenchis and De Generatione et Corruptione before he died. I have checked the proofs and added a brief index. D. J. FURLEV London January 1955 DE SOPHISTICIS ELENCHIS INTRODUCTION I. The Place of the Topica IN THE OrgA SON Both the Topica and the I)e Sophistids Elenchis have always been regarded as genuine works of Aristotle. The two treatises are closely connected ; the De Sophistids Elenchis is an appendix to the Topica and its final section forms an epilogue to both treatises ; indeed Aristotle himself seems sometimes to regard the two as forming a single work, since he twice quotes the De Sophistids Elenchis under the title of the Topica. It is generally admitted that what we call logic and Aristotle himself calls analytic was an early pre- occupation of the philosopher and a direct outcome of discussions on scientific method held in the Platonic Academy. Plato himself, however, never attempted a formal treatment of the subject and the theories put forward, for example, in the Theaetetus, Sophist, Parmenides and Politicus were never developed into a regular system. But while Aristotle's systematic treatment of the process of inference and, above all, his discovery of the syllogism owe little to Plato, it has been generally recognized that the Platonic dia- logues contain some of the germs from which the Aristotelian system was afterwards developed ; for 2 ON SOPHISTICAL REFUTATIONS example, in the Theaetetus the doctrine of the cate- gories is already implicit in the recognition of the abstract notions of substance, quality, quantity, re- lation, activity and passivity. Of the logical treatises of Aristotle, which since about A.D. 200 have passed under the title of the Organon or ' instrument ' of science, the most im- portant are (1) the Prior Analytics, in which he sets forth the doctrine of the syllogism in its formal aspect without reference to the subject-matter with which it deals, (2) the Posterior Analytics, in which he discusses the characteristics which reasoning must necessarily possess in order to be truly scientific, (3) the Topica, in which he treats of the modes of reasoning, which, while syllogistically correct, fall short of the conditions of scientific accuracy. The Categories and the De Interpretatione are subsidiary treatises dealing, in the main, with the term and the proposition. A great deal of time and ingenuity has been expended, particularly by German scholars, in an attempt to fix the exact order in which the various treatises which constitute the Organon were com- posed. The problem is complicated by the fact that the treatises, in the form in which they have come down to us, seem to consist of rough notes, which were evidently subjected to a certain amount of revision due to the modification and development of his original doctrines. This process has naturally given rise to minor inconsistencies such as would naturally occur if corrections were made or additions inserted which were not completely adapted to the context in which they were placed. It has been generally recognized that the whole ARISTOTLE of the Topica does not belong to the same date. H. Maier " holds that the oldest portion consists of Books II-VII. 2 and that it was written under the direct influence of the Academy and belongs to the same period as the Aristotelian Dialogues, which have survived only in fragments ; in particular, he points out that the term croAAoy/cr/xov is not used in the technical sense which it afterwards acquired (or, if it is used in that sense, e.g., in 130 a 7, it is a late inser- tion), whereas in the second half of Book VII the term is used in its well-known Aristotelian sense, and that, consequently. Books II-VII. 2 were composed before the philosopher made his greatest contribu- tion to logic. He holds that Books I and VIII belong to the sanie period as Book VII. 4-5, and form an introduction and conclusion to the treatise WTitten after the discovery of the syllogism and that the De Sophisticis Elenckis was a subsequent addition to the Topica. On the other hand, F. Solmsen " and P. Gohlke « hold that Books I-VII form the earlier portion of the w^ork and that Book VIII and the De Sophisticis Elenckis were added subsequently. As regards the relation of the Topica to the rest of the Organon, Maier considers the Topica as a whole to be earlier than the Analytics ; Solmsen suggests that the order was (1) Topica I-VII, (2) Posterior Ana- lytics I, (3) Topica VIII and De Sophisticis Elenchis, (4) Posterior Analytics II, (5) Prior Analytics ; Gohlke holds that the traditional order of the two Analytics is correct, and that the Topica and De Sophisticis Elenchis presuppose the Analytics. In short, there is general agreement that the bulk of the Topica embodies Aristotle's earliest contribu- " See Bibliography. ON SOPHISTICAL REFUTATIONS tion to the systematic study of logic and that it was written in part before his discovery of the syllogism. II. The Content of the Topiua The purpose of the Topica is, in the words of its author (100 a 18 ff.), ' to discover a method by which we shall be able to reason from generally accepted opinions about any problem set before us and shall ourselves, when sustaining an argument, avoid saying ' anything self-contradictory ; that is to say, it aims at enabling the two participants, the ' questioner ' and the ' answerer,' to sustain their parts in a dialectical discussion. The subject, then, of the treatise may be described as the dialectical syllogism based on premises which are merely probable as contrasted with the demonstrative, or scientific, syllogism, which is the subject of the Posterior Analytics and is based on premises which are true and immediate. The probable premises which make up the dialectical syllogism are described (100 b 21 f.) as ' those which commend themselves to all or to the majority or to the wise.' The uses of dialectic are, we are told, three in number, (1) for mental training, (2) for general conversation, and (3) for application to the sciences, because (a) if we can argue a question pro and con, we shall be in a better position to recognize truth and falsehood, and (b) since the first principles of the sciences cannot be scientifically demonstrated, the approach to them must be through the study of the opinions generally held about them. After the general introduction in Book I, Aristotle, in Books II-VII. 3, gives a collection of the tottoi which 5 ; ARISTOTLE give their name to the treatise. The term tottoi is somewhat difficult to define. They may be described as * commonplaces ' of argument or as general prin- ciples of probability which stand in the same relation to the dialectical syllogism as axioms stand to the demonstrative syllogism ; in other words, they are ' the pigeon-holes from which dialectical reasoning is to draw its arguments.' " Books II and III deal with the problems of accident Books IV and V with those of genus and property ; Books VI and VII. 1-3 with those of definition. Books VII. 4-5 and Book VIII, after giving some additional notes, conclude the treatise by describing the practice of dialectical reasoning. III. The De Sophisticis Elenchis Just as Aristotle treats of the demonstrative and the dialectical syllogism in the Posterior Analytics and the Topica, respectively, so in this treatise, which forms a kind of appendix to the Topica, he deals with the sophistical syllogism. A knowledge of this is part of the necessary equipment of the arguer, not in order that he may himself make use of it but that he may avoid it, and that the unwary may not be ensnared in the toils of sophistical argument ; in fact, Aristotle is carrying on the Socratic and early- Platonic tradition by attacking the Sophists, who taught the use of logical fallacy in order to make the worse cause appear the better. The term eXeyx"^ is strictly applied to the confuta- tion of an actual adversary, but it is also used more " W. D. Ross, Aristotle, p. 59. ON SOPHISTICAL REFUTATIONS widely of the confutation of an imaginary opponent. The treatise is, in fact, a study of fallacies in general, which are classified under various headings and fall into two main classes, those which depend on the language employed and those which do not. Some of these fallacies would hardly deceive the most simple minds ; others, which Aristotle seems to have been the first person to expose and define, are capable not only of deceiving the innocent but also of escaping the notice of arguers who are employing them. After two introductory chapters the work naturally falls into two parts, chapters 3-15, the refutation of fallacies, and chapters 16-33, the solution of fallacies, while chapter 34 forms an epilogue to the work.