on sophistical refutations-第10部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！




commits　a　solecism；　though　he　does　not　seem　to　do　so　to　other



people；　where　he　who　calls　it　a　'destructor'　（oulomenon）　commits　no



solecism　though　he　seems　to　do　so。　It　is　clear；　then；　that　any　one



could　produce　this　effect　by　art　as　well：　and　for　this　reason　many



arguments　seem　to　lead　to　solecism　which　do　not　really　do　so；　as



happens　in　the　case　of　refutations。



　　Almost　all　apparent　solecisms　depend　upon　the　word　'this'　（tode）；



and　upon　occasions　when　the　inflection　denotes　neither　a　masculine　nor



a　feminine　object　but　a　neuter。　For　'he'　（outos）　signifies　a



masculine；　and　'she'　（aute）　feminine；　but　'this'　（touto）；　though



meant　to　signify　a　neuter；　often　also　signifies　one　or　other　of　the



former：　e。g。　'What　is　this？'　'It　is　Calliope'；　'it　is　a　log'；　'it　is



Coriscus'。　Now　in　the　masculine　and　feminine　the　inflections　are　all



different；　whereas　in　the　neuter　some　are　and　some　are　not。　Often；



then；　when　'this'　（touto）　has　been　granted；　people　reason　as　if　'him'



（touton）　had　been　said：　and　likewise　also　they　substitute　one



inflection　for　another。　The　fallacy　comes　about　because　'this'



（touto）　is　a　common　form　of　several　inflections：　for　'this'　signifies



sometimes　'he'　（outos）　and　sometimes　'him'　（touton）。　It　should



signify　them　alternately；　when　combined　with　'is'　（esti）　it　should　be



'he'；　while　with　'being'　it　should　be　'him'：　e。g。　'Coriscus



（Kopiskos）　is'；　but　'being　Coriscus'　（Kopiskon）。　It　happens　in　the



same　way　in　the　case　of　feminine　nouns　as　well；　and　in　the　case　of　the



so…called　'chattels'　that　have　feminine　or　masculine　designations。　For



only　those　names　which　end　in　o　and　n；　have　the　designation　proper



to　a　chattel；　e。g。　xulon　（'log'）；　schoinion　（'rope'）；　those　which　do



not　end　so　have　that　of　a　masculine　or　feminine　object；　though　some　of



them　we　apply　to　chattels：　e。g。　askos　（'wineskin'）　is　a　masculine



noun；　and　kline　（'bed'）　a　feminine。　For　this　reason　in　cases　of　this



kind　as　well　there　will　be　a　difference　of　the　same　sort　between　a



construction　with　'is'　（esti）　or　with　'being'　（to　einai）。　Also；



Solecism　resembles　in　a　certain　way　those　refutations　which　are　said



to　depend　on　the　like　expression　of　unlike　things。　For；　just　as



there　we　come　upon　a　material　solecism；　so　here　we　come　upon　a　verbal：



for　'man'　is　both　a　'matter'　for　expression　and　also　a　'word'：　and



so　is　white'。



　　It　is　clear；　then；　that　for　solecisms　we　must　try　to　construct　our



argument　out　of　the　aforesaid　inflections。



　　These；　then；　are　the　types　of　contentious　arguments；　and　the



subdivisions　of　those　types；　and　the　methods　for　conducting　them



aforesaid。　But　it　makes　no　little　difference　if　the　materials　for



putting　the　question　be　arranged　in　a　certain　manner　with　a　view　to



concealment；　as　in　the　case　of　dialectics。　Following　then　upon　what　we



have　said；　this　must　be　discussed　first。







　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　15







　　With　a　view　then　to　refutation；　one　resource　is　length…for　it　is



difficult　to　keep　several　things　in　view　at　once；　and　to　secure　length



the　elementary　rules　that　have　been　stated　before'　should　be　employed。



One　resource；　on　the　other　hand；　is　speed；　for　when　people　are　left



behind　they　look　ahead　less。　Moreover；　there　is　anger　and



contentiousness；　for　when　agitated　everybody　is　less　able　to　take　care



of　himself。　Elementary　rules　for　producing　anger　are　to　make　a　show　of



the　wish　to　play　foul；　and　to　be　altogether　shameless。　Moreover；　there



is　the　putting　of　one's　questions　alternately；　whether　one　has　more



than　one　argument　leading　to　the　same　conclusion；　or　whether　one　has



arguments　to　show　both　that　something　is　so；　and　that　it　is　not　so：



for　the　result　is　that　he　has　to　be　on　his　guard　at　the　same　time



either　against　more　than　one　line；　or　against　contrary　lines；　of



argument。　In　general；　all　the　methods　described　before　of　producing



concealment　are　useful　also　for　purposes　of　contentious　argument：



for　the　object　of　concealment　is　to　avoid　detection；　and　the　object　of



this　is　to　deceive。



　　To　counter　those　who　refuse　to　grant　whatever　they　suppose　to　help



one's　argument；　one　should　put　the　question　negatively；　as　though



desirous　of　the　opposite　answer；　or　at　any　rate　as　though　one　put



the　question　without　prejudice；　for　when　it　is　obscure　what　answer　one



wants　to　secure；　people　are　less　refractory。　Also　when；　in　dealing



with　particulars；　a　man　grants　the　individual　case；　when　the　induction



is　done　you　should　often　not　put　the　universal　as　a　question；　but　take



it　for　granted　and　use　it：　for　sometimes　people　themselves　suppose



that　they　have　granted　it；　and　also　appear　to　the　audience　to　have



done　so；　for　they　remember　the　induction　and　assume　that　the　questions



could　not　have　been　put　for　nothing。　In　cases　where　there　is　no　term



to　indicate　the　universal；　still　you　should　avail　yourself　of　the



resemblance　of　the　particulars　to　suit　your　purpose；　for　resemblance



often　escapes　detection。　Also；　with　a　view　to　obtaining　your



premiss；　you　ought　to　put　it　in　your　question　side　by　side　with　its



contrary。　E。g。　if　it　were　necessary　to　secure　the　admission　that　'A



man　should　obey　his　father　in　everything'；　ask　'Should　a　man　obey



his　parents　in　everything；　or　disobey　them　in　everything？'；　and　to



secure　that　'A　number　multiplied　by　a　large　number　is　a　large　number'；



ask　'Should　one　agree　that　it　is　a　large　number　or　a　small　one？'　For



then；　if　compelled　to　choose；　one　will　be　more　inclined　to　think　it



a　large　one：　for　the　placing　of　their　contraries　close　beside　them



makes　things　look　big　to　men；　both　relatively　and　absolutely；　and



worse　and　better。



　　A　strong　appearance　of　having　been　refuted　is　often　produced　by



the　most　highly　sophistical　of　all　the　unfair　tricks　of　questioners；



when　without　proving　anything；　instead　of　putting　their　final



proposition　as　a　question；　they　state　it　as　a　conclusion；　as　though



they　had　proved　that　'Therefore　so…and…so　is　not　true'



　　It　is　also　a　sophistical　trick；　when　a　paradox　has　been　laid　down；



first　to　propose　at　the　start　some　view　that　is　generally　accepted；



and　then　claim　that　the　answerer　shall　answer　what　he　thinks　about　it；



and　to　put　one's　question　on　matters　of　that　kind　in　the　form　'Do



you　think　that。。。？'　For　then；　if　the　question　be　taken　as　one　of　the



premisses　of　one's　argument；　either　a　refutation　or　a　paradox　is　bound



to　result；　if　he　grants　the　view；　a　refutation；　if　he　refuses　to　grant



it　or　even　to　admit　it　as　the　received　opinion；　a　paradox；　if　he



refuses　to　grant　it；　but　admits　that　it　is　the　received　opinion；



something　very　like　a　refutation；　results。



　　Moreover；　just　as　in　rhetorical　discourses；　so　also　in　those　aimed



at　refutation；　you　should　examine　the　discrepancies　of　the



answerer's　position　either　with　his　own　statements；　or　with　those　of



persons　whom　he　admit