Aristotle
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, by _Reductio 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 some _Hoc Aliquid_, and belonging
to _Quale_ or 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 ([Greek: para\ tou\s pollou\s e(/n ti]). It is
[Greek: poio/n], and it cannot even be recognized as [Greek: o(/per
poio/n] or [Greek: au)to-poio/n], for this would put it apart from
all the other [Greek: poia/], 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
[Greek: to\ e(\n para\ ta\ polla/] 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 [Greek: o(/per
poio/n]--id ipsum, quod quale est (J. Pacius)--"une qualité:" the
argument turns upon the distinction between [Greek: o(/per poio/n]
and [Greek: poio/n].
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 are _idem 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 [Greek: e(\n kata\ sumbebêko/s]. See Arist.
Metaph. [Greek: D]. 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 [Greek: Ko/riskos mousiko/s]
cannot be properly _set out_ or abstracted ([Greek: ou)k e)/stin
au)to\ e)kthe/sthai]), because it includes two Categories (Substance
and Quality) in one; wherefore it cannot be properly compared either
with [Greek: Ko/riskos] simply (Category of Substance) or with
[Greek: mousiko/s] simply (Category of Quality). It seems strange
that Aristotle does not notice this argumentative difficulty in the
discussion which he bestows on [Greek: tau)to/n] 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 [Greek: o(
grammatiko\s Sôkra/tês] is [Greek: o( au)to\s tô=| Sôkra/tei] (Schol.
ad Metaphys. p. 736, b. 26, Brand.).]
As a general rule, in all the refutations founded on the seven
Fallacies _In Dictione_, the respondent will solve the refutation by
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]
[Footnote 113: Soph. El. xxiii. p. 179, a. 11-25.]
Passing to the Fallacies _Extra 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]
[Footnote 114: Soph. El. xxiv. p. 179, a. 30: [Greek: r(ête/on ou)=n
sumbibasthe/ntas o(moi/ôs pro\s a(/pantas o(/ti ou)k a)nagkai=on;
e)/chein de\ dei= prophe/rein to\ oi(=on.]]
[Footnote 115: Ibid. 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.[116] Aristotle
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
of _Fallaciæ 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 the _Fallacia Accidentis_
consists 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]
[Footnote 116: Ibid. b. 7, 18, 37: [Greek: lu/ousi de/ tines
a)nairou=ntes tê\n e)rô/têsin; phasi\ ga\r e)nde/chesthai tau)to\
pra=gma ei)de/nai kai\ a)gnoei=n, a)lla\ mê\ kata\ tau)to/.]
Mr. Poste (pp. 152-157) translates [Greek: a)nairou=ntes tê\n
e)rô/têsin]--"contradicting the thesis," 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 [Greek: e)rô/têsis] does mean "the thesis," 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 [Greek: e)rô/têsis] 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 the _thesis_ cannot come
under either one meaning or the other, being the proposition which
the respondent sets out by affirming and undertakes to defend.]
[Footnote 117: Soph. El. xxiv. p. 179, b. 23: [Greek: ê)=n ga\r ê(
lu/sis e)mpha/nisis pseudou=s sullogismou=, par' o(\ pseudê/s.]]
In like manner, all those Fallacies which come under the general head
of _A 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 the _Antiphasis_
are true--that the same predicate A may be both affirmed and denied
of the same subject B. He solves the contradiction by analysing the
_Antiphasis_, and by showing that affirmation is _secundum quid_,
while denial is _simpliciter_; and that there is a contradiction not
real, but only apparent, between the two.[118]
[Footnote 118: Ibid. xxv. p. 180, a. 23-31.]
In like manner, the Fallacy _Ignoratio Elenchi_ will be solved by
analysing the two supposed counter-propositions of the _Antiphasis_,
and by showing that there is no real contradiction or inconsistency
between them.[119]
[Footnote 119: Ibid. xxvi. p. 181, a. 1-14.]
In regard to the Fallacies under _Petitio Principii_, the respondent
if he perceives that the premiss asked of him involves such a
fallacy, must refuse to grant it, however probable it may be in
itself. If he does not perceive this until after he has granted it,
he must throw back the charge of mal-procedure upon the questioner;
declaring that an Elenchus involving assumption of the matter in
question is null, and that the concession was made under the
supposition that some separate and independent syllogism was in
contemplation.[120]
[Footnote 120: Ibid. xxvii. p. 181, a. 15-21.]
There are two distinct ways in which the _Fallacia Consequentis_ may
be employed. The predicate may be an universal, comprehending the
subject: because animal always goes along with man, it is falsely
inferred that man always goes along with animal; or it is falsely