Aristotle
the other." The original syllogism is assumed to have two premisses,
each highly probable, while the conclusion is highly improbable,
being the negation of a highly probable proposition. The original
syllogism will stand thus: All M is P; All S is M; _Ergo_, All S is
P: the two premisses being supposed highly probable, and the
conclusion highly improbable. Of course, therefore, the contradictory
of the conclusion will be highly probable--Some S is not P. We take
this contradictory and employ it to construct two new syllogisms as
follows:--"All M is P; Some S is not P; _Ergo_ Some S is not M. And
again, Some S is not P: All S is M; _Ergo_, Some M is not P. All
these three syllogisms are similar in this respect: that each has two
highly probable premisses, while the conclusion is highly
improbable.]
But in eristic or sophistic debate our greatest embarrassment as
respondents will arise when we do not at once see whether the
refutative syllogism brought against us is conclusive or not, and
whether it is to be solved by negation or by distinction.[134] Next
in order as to embarrassment stands the case, where we see in which
of the two processes (negation or distinction) we are to find our
solution, yet without seeing on which of the premisses we are to
bring the process to bear; or whether, if distinction be the process
required, we are to apply it to the conclusion, or to one of the
premisses.[135] A defective syllogistic argument is silly, when the
deficient points are of capital importance--relating to the minor or
to the middle term, or when the assumptions are false and strange;
but it will sometimes be worthy of attention, if the points deficient
are outlying and easily supplied; in which cases it is the
carelessness of the questioner that is to blame, rather than the
argument itself.[136] Both the line of argument taken by the
questioner, and the mode of solution adopted by the respondent, may
be directed towards any one of three distinct purposes: either to the
thesis and main subject discussed; or to the adversary personally
(_i.e._, to the particular way in which he has been arguing); or to
neither of these, but simply to prolong the discussion (_i.e._,
against time). The solution may thus be sometimes such that it would
take more time to argue upon it than the patience of the auditors
will allow.[137]
[Footnote 134: Soph. El. xxxiii. p. 183, a. 7.]
[Footnote 135: Ibid. a. 9: [Greek: deu/teros de\ tô=n a)/llôn o(
dê=los me\n o(/ti para\ diai/resin ê)\ a)nai/resi/n e)sti, mê\
phanero\s d' ô)\n dia\ ti/nos tô=n ê)rôtême/nôn a)nai/resin ê)\
diai/resin lute/os e)sti/n, a)lla\ po/teron au(/tê para\ to\
sumpe/rasma ê)\ para/ ti tô=n e)rôtêma/tôn e)sti/n.]
Mr. Poste translates these last words very correctly:--"Whether it is
one of the premisses or the conclusion that requires distinction."
Here Aristotle again speaks of a mode of solution furnished by
applying _distinction_ ([Greek: diai/resis]) to _the conclusion_ as
well as to the premisses, though he does not say that solution can be
furnished by applying _disproof_ ([Greek: a)nai/resis]) to _the
conclusion_. See my remarks, a few pages above, on Mr. Poste's note
respecting ch. xviii. (supra, p. 406).]
[Footnote 136: Soph. El. xxxiii. p. 183, a. 14-20.]
[Footnote 137: Ibid. a. 21.]
The last chapter of the Sophistici Elenchi is employed by Aristotle
in recapitulating the scope and procedure of the nine Books of Topica
(reckoning the Sophistici Elenchi as the Ninth, as we ought in
propriety to do); and in appreciating the general bearing and value
of that treatise, having regard to the practice and theory of the
day.
The business of Dialectic and Peirastic is to find and apply the
syllogizing process to any given thesis, with premisses the most
probable that can be obtained bearing on the thesis. This Aristotle
treats as the proper function of Dialectic _per se_ and of Peirastic;
considering both--the last, of course--as referring wholly to the
questioner. His purpose is to investigate and impart this syllogizing
power--the power of questioning and cross-examining a respondent who
sets up a given thesis, so as to drive him into inconsistent answers.
It appears that Aristotle would not have cared to teach the
respondent how he might defend himself against this procedure, if
there had not happened to be another art--Sophistic, closely
bordering on Dialectic and Peirastic. He considers it indispensable
to furnish the respondent with defensive armour against sophistical
cross-examination; and this could not be done without teaching him at
the same time modes of defence against the cross-examination of
Dialectic and Peirastic. For this reason it is (Aristotle **tells
us[138]) that he has included in the Topica precepts on the best mode
of defending the thesis by the most probable arguments, as well as of
impugning it. The respondent professes to know (while the questioner
does not), and must be taught how to maintain his thesis like a man
of knowledge. Sokrates, the prince of dialecticians, did nothing but
question and cross-examine: he would never be respondent at all; for
he explicitly disclaimed knowledge. And if it were not for the
neighbourhood of Sophistic, Aristotle would have thought it
sufficient to teach a procedure like that of Sokrates. It was the
danger from sophistical cross-examination that led him to enlarge his
scheme--to unmask the Sophists by enumerating the paralogisms
peculiar to them, and to indicate the proper scheme of the responses
and solutions whereby the respondent might defend himself against
them. We remember that Aristotle treats all paralogisms and fallacies
as if they belonged to a peculiar art or profession called Sophistic,
and as if they were employed by Sophists exclusively; as if the
Dialecticians and the Peirasts, including among them Sokrates and
Plato, put all their questions without ever resorting to or falling
into paralogisms.
[Footnote 138: Ibid. xxxiv. p. 183, a. 37-b. 8: [Greek: proeilo/metha
me\n ou)=n eu(rei=n du/nami/n tina sullogistikê\n peri\ tou=
problêthe/ntos e)k tô=n u(parcho/ntôn ô(s e)ndoxota/tôn; _tou=to ga\r
e)/rgon e)sti\_ tê=s _dialektikê=s kath' au(tê\n kai\ tê=s
peirastikê=s_. e)pei\ de\ _proskataskeua/zetai pro\s au)tê\n dia\
tê\n tê=s sophistikê=s geitni/asin_, ô(s ou) mo/non pei=ran du/natai
labei=n dialektikô=s, a)lla\ kai\ ô(s ei)dô/s, _dia\ tou=to ou)
mo/non to\ lechthe\n_ e)/rgon u(pethe/metha tê=s pragmatei/as to\
lo/gon du/nasthai labei=n, a)lla\ kai\ o(/pôs lo/gon u(pe/chontes
phula/xomen tê\n the/sin ô(s di' e)ndoxota/tôn o(motro/pôs. tê\n d'
ai)ti/an ei)rê/kamen tou/tou, e)pei\ kai\ dia\ tou=to Sôkra/tês
ê)rô/ta a)ll' ou)k a)pekri/neto; ô(molo/gei ga\r ou)k ei)de/nai.]
It appears to me that in one line of this remarkable passage a word
has dropped out which is necessary to the sense. We now read (about
the middle) [Greek: ô(s ou) mo/non pei=ran du/natai labei=n
dialektikô=s, a)lla\ kai\ ô(s ei)dô/s]. Now the words [Greek: pei=ran
labei=n] as the passage stands, must be construed along with [Greek:
ô(s ei)dô/s], and this makes no meaning at all, or an inadmissible
meaning. I think it clear that the word [Greek: u(pe/chein] or
[Greek: dou=nai] has dropped out before [Greek: ei)dô/s]. The passage
will then stand:--[Greek: ô(s ou) mo/non pei=ran du/natai labei=n
dialektikô=s, a)lla\ kai\ _u(pe/chein_] (or [Greek: _dou=nai_) ô(s
ei)dô/s]. When this verb is supplied the sense will be quite in
harmony with what follows, which at present it is not. [Greek:
Pei=ran labei=n] applies to the questioner, but not to the
respondent; [Greek: ô(s ei)dô/s] applies to the respondent, but not
to the questioner; [Greek: pei=ran u(pe/chein] applies to the
respondent, and is therefore the fit concomitant of [Greek: ô(s
ei)dô/s]. The translation given by Mr. Poste _first_
(p. 93):--"professing not only to test knowledge with the resources
of Dialectic, but also to maintain any thesis with the infallibility
of science" appears to me (excepting the word _infallibility_, which
is unsuitable) to render Aristotle's thought, though not his words as
they now stand; but Mr. Poste has given what he thinks an amended
translation (p. 175):--"Since it claims the power of catechizing or
cross-examining not only dialectically but also scientifically." This
second translation may approach more nearly to the present words of
Aristotle, but it departs more widely from his sense and doctrine.
Aristotle does not claim for either Dialecticians or Sophists the
power of cross-examining scientifically. He ascribes to the Sophists
nothing but cavil and fallacy--verbal and extra-verbal--the pretence
and sham of being wise or knowing (Soph. El. i., ii. p. 165).]
Aristotle, we have already more than once seen, asserts emphatically
his claim to originality as having been the first to treat these
subjects theoretically, and to suggest precepts founded on the
theory. On all important subjects (he remarks) the elaboration of any
good theory is a gradual process, the work of several successive
authors. The first beginnings are very imperfect and rudimentary;
upon these, however, subsequent authors build, both correcting and
enlarging, until, after some considerable time, a tolerably complete
scheme or system comes to be constructed. Such has been the case with
Rhetoric and other arts. Tisias was the first writer and preceptor on
Rhetoric, yet with poor and insufficient effect. To him succeeded
Thrasymachus, next Theodorus, and various others; from each of whom
partial improvements and additions were derived, until at length we
have now (it is Aristotle that speaks) a copious body of rhetorical
theory and precept, inherited from predecessors and accumulated by
successive traditions. Compared with this, the earliest attempt at
theory was indeed narrow and imperfect; but it was nevertheless the
first step in a great work, and, as such, it was the most difficult
and the most important. The task of building on a foundation already
laid, is far easier.[139]
[Footnote 139: Soph. El. xxxiv. p. 183, b. 17-26: [Greek: tô=n ga\r
eu(riskome/nôn a(pa/ntôn ta\ me\n par' e(te/rôn lêphthe/nta pro/teron
peponême/na kata\ me/ros e)pide/dôken u(po\ tô=n paralabo/ntôn
u(/steron; ta\ d' e)x u(parchê=s eu(risko/mena mikra\n to\ prô=ton
e)pi/dosin lamba/nein ei)/ôthe, chrêsimôte/ran me/ntoi pollô=| tê=s
u(/steron e)k tou/tôn au)xê/seôs; me/giston ga\r i)/sôs a)rchê\
panto/s, ô(/sper le/getai; dio\ kai\ chalepô/taton; o(/sô| ga\r
kra/tiston tê=| duna/mei, tosou/tô| mikro/taton o(\n tô=| mege/thei
chalepô/tato/n e)stin o)phthê=nai; tau/tês d' eu(rême/nês r(a=|on
prostithe/nai kai\ sunau/xein to\ loipo/n e)stin.]]
While rhetorical theory has thus been gradually worked up to
maturity, the case has been altogether different with Dialectic. In
this I (Aristotle) found no basis prepared; no predecessor to follow;
no models to copy. I had to begin from the beginning, and to make
good the first step myself. The process of syllogizing had never yet
been analysed or explained by any one; much less had anything been
set forth about the different applications of it in detail. I worked
it out for myself, without any assistance, by long and laborious
application.[140] There existed indeed paid teachers, both in
Dialectic and in Eristic (or Sophistic); but their teaching has been
entirely without analysis, or theory, or system. Just as rhetoricians
gave to their pupils orations to learn by heart, so these dialectical
teachers gave out dialogues to learn by heart upon those subjects
which they thought most likely to become the topics of discourse.
They thus imparted to their pupils a certain readiness and fluency;
but they communicated no art, no rational conception of what was to