友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!
恐怖书库 返回本书目录 加入书签 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 『收藏到我的浏览器』

on sophistical refutations-第12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!




Coriscus unmusical。 But this will not do; for to say 'this Coriscus is



unmusical'; or 'musical'; and to say 'this Coriscus' is so; is to



use the same expression: and this he is both affirming and denying



at once。 'But perhaps they do not mean the same。' Well; nor did the



simple name in the former case: so where is the difference? If;



however; he is to ascribe to the one person the simple title



'Coriscus'; while to the other he is to add the prefix 'one' or



'this'; he commits an absurdity: for the latter is no more



applicable to the one than to the other: for to whichever he adds



it; it makes no difference。



  All the same; since if a man does not distinguish the senses of an



amphiboly; it is not clear whether he has been confuted or has not



been confuted; and since in arguments the right to distinguish them is



granted; it is evident that to grant the question simply without



drawing any distinction is a mistake; so that; even if not the man



himself; at any rate his argument looks as though it had been refuted。



It often happens; however; that; though they see the amphiboly; people



hesitate to draw such distinctions; because of the dense crowd of



persons who propose questions of the kind; in order that they may



not be thought to be obstructionists at every turn: then; though



they would never have supposed that that was the point on which the



argument turned; they often find themselves faced by a paradox。



Accordingly; since the right of drawing the distinction is granted;



one should not hesitate; as has been said before。



  If people never made two questions into one question; the fallacy



that turns upon ambiguity and amphiboly would not have existed either;



but either genuine refutation or none。 For what is the difference



between asking 'Are Callias and Themistocles musical?' and what one



might have asked if they; being different; had had one name? For if



the term applied means more than one thing; he has asked more than one



question。 If then it be not right to demand simply to be given a



single answer to two questions; it is evident that it is not proper to



give a simple answer to any ambiguous question; not even if the



predicate be true of all the subjects; as some claim that one



should。 For this is exactly as though he had asked 'Are Coriscus and



Callias at home or not at home?'; supposing them to be both in or both



out: for in both cases there is a number of propositions: for though



the simple answer be true; that does not make the question one。 For it



is possible for it to be true to answer even countless different



questions when put to one; all together with either a 'Yes' or a 'No':



but still one should not answer them with a single answer: for that is



the death of discussion。 Rather; the case is like as though



different things has actually had the same name applied to them。 If



then; one should not give a single answer to two questions; it is



evident that we should not say simply 'Yes' or 'No' in the case of



ambiguous terms either: for the remark is simply a remark; not an



answer at all; although among disputants such remarks are loosely



deemed to be answers; because they do not see what the consequence is。



  As we said; then; inasmuch as certain refutations are generally



taken for such; though not such really; in the same way also certain



solutions will be generally taken for solutions; though not really



such。 Now these; we say; must sometimes be advanced rather than the



true solutions in contentious reasonings and in the encounter with



ambiguity。 The proper answer in saying what one thinks is to say



'Granted'; for in that way the likelihood of being refuted on a side



issue is minimized。 If; on the other hand; one is compelled to say



something paradoxical; one should then be most careful to add that 'it



seems' so: for in that way one avoids the impression of being either



refuted or paradoxical。 Since it is clear what is meant by 'begging



the original question'; and people think that they must at all costs



overthrow the premisses that lie near the conclusion; and plead in



excuse for refusing to grant him some of them that he is begging the



original question; so whenever any one claims from us a point such



as is bound to follow as a consequence from our thesis; but is false



or paradoxical; we must plead the same: for the necessary consequences



are generally held to be a part of the thesis itself。 Moreover;



whenever the universal has been secured not under a definite name; but



by a comparison of instances; one should say that the questioner



assumes it not in the sense in which it was granted nor in which he



proposed it in the premiss: for this too is a point upon which a



refutation often depends。



  If one is debarred from these defences one must pass to the argument



that the conclusion has not been properly shown; approaching it in the



light of the aforesaid distinction between the different kinds of



fallacy。



  In the case; then; of names that are used literally one is bound



to answer either simply or by drawing a distinction: the tacit



understandings implied in our statements; e。g。 in answer to



questions that are not put clearly but elliptically…it is upon this



that the consequent refutation depends。 For example; 'Is what



belongs to Athenians the property of Athenians?' Yes。 'And so it is



likewise in other cases。 But observe; man belongs to the animal



kingdom; doesn't he?' Yes。 'Then man is the property of the animal



kingdom。' But this is a fallacy: for we say that man 'belongs to'



the animal kingdom because he is an animal; just as we say that



Lysander 'belongs to' the Spartans; because he is a Spartan。 It is



evident; then; that where the premiss put forward is not clear; one



must not grant it simply。



  Whenever of two things it is generally thought that if the one is



true the other is true of necessity; whereas; if the other is true;



the first is not true of necessity; one should; if asked which of them



is true; grant the smaller one: for the larger the number of



premisses; the harder it is to draw a conclusion from them。 If; again;



the sophist tries to secure that has a contrary while B has not;



suppose what he says is true; you should say that each has a contrary;



only for the one there is no established name。



  Since; again; in regard to some of the views they express; most



people would say that any one who did not admit them was telling a



falsehood; while they would not say this in regard to some; e。g。 to



any matters whereon opinion is divided (for most people have no



distinct view whether the soul of animals is destructible or



immortal); accordingly (1) it is uncertain in which of two senses



the premiss proposed is usually meant…whether as maxims are (for



people call by the name of 'maxims' both true opinions and g
返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 3 1
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!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!