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7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!




be directed against the thought。 Such being the meanings of the



phrases in question; they clearly cannot describe two separate classes



of argument。 For; in the first place; it is possible for any such



argument as bears more than one meaning to be directed against the



expression and against the thought; and next it is possible for any



argument whatsoever; for the fact of being directed against the



thought consists not in the nature of the argument; but in the special



attitude of the answerer towards the points he concedes。 Next; all



of them may be directed to the expression。 For 'to be directed against



the expression' means in this doctrine 'not to be directed against the



thought'。 For if not all are directed against either expression or



thought; there will be certain other arguments directed neither



against the expression nor against the thought; whereas they say



that all must be one or the other; and divide them all as directed



either against the expression or against the thought; while others



(they say) there are none。 But in point of fact those that depend on



mere expression are only a branch of those syllogisms that depend on a



multiplicity of meanings。 For the absurd statement has actually been



made that the description 'dependent on mere expression' describes all



the arguments that depend on language: whereas some of these are



fallacies not because the answerer adopts a particular attitude



towards them; but because the argument itself involves the asking of a



question such as bears more than one meaning。



  It is; too; altogether absurd to discuss Refutation without first



discussing Proof: for a refutation is a proof; so that one ought to



discuss proof as well before describing false refutation: for a



refutation of that kind is a merely apparent proof of the



contradictory of a thesis。 Accordingly; the reason of the falsity will



be either in the proof or in the contradiction (for mention of the



'contradiction' must be added); while sometimes it is in both; if



the refutation be merely apparent。 In the argument that speaking of



the silent is possible it lies in the contradiction; not in the proof;



in the argument that one can give what one does not possess; it lies



in both; in the proof that Homer's poem is a figure through its



being a cycle it lies in the proof。 An argument that does not fail



in either respect is a true proof。



  But; to return to the point whence our argument digressed; are



mathematical reasonings directed against the thought; or not? And if



any one thinks 'triangle' to be a word with many meanings; and granted



it in some different sense from the figure which was proved to contain



two right angles; has the questioner here directed his argument



against the thought of the former or not?



  Moreover; if the expression bears many senses; while the answerer



does not understand or suppose it to have them; surely the



questioner here has directed his argument against his thought! Or



how else ought he to put his question except by suggesting a



distinction…suppose one's question to be speaking of the silent



possible or not?'…as follows; 'Is the answer 〃No〃 in one sense; but



〃Yes〃 in another?' If; then; any one were to answer that it was not



possible in any sense and the other were to argue that it was; has not



his argument been directed against the thought of the answerer? Yet



his argument is supposed to be one of those that depend on the



expression。 There is not; then; any definite kind of arguments that is



directed against the thought。 Some arguments are; indeed; directed



against the expression: but these are not all even apparent



refutations; let alone all refutations。 For there are also apparent



refutations which do not depend upon language; e。g。 those that



depend upon accident; and others。



  If; however; any one claims that one should actually draw the



distinction; and say; 'By 〃speaking of the silent〃 I mean; in one



sense this and in the other sense that'; surely to claim this is in



the first place absurd (for sometimes the questioner does not see



the ambiguity of his question; and he cannot possibly draw a



distinction which he does not think to be there): in the second place;



what else but this will didactic argument be? For it will make



manifest the state of the case to one who has never considered; and



does not know or suppose that there is any other meaning but one。



For what is there to prevent the same thing also happening to us in



cases where there is no double meaning? 'Are the units in four equal



to the twos? Observe that the twos are contained in four in one



sense in this way; in another sense in that'。 Also; 'Is the



knowledge of contraries one or not? Observe that some contraries are



known; while others are unknown'。 Thus the man who makes this claim



seems to be unaware of the difference between didactic and dialectical



argument; and of the fact that while he who argues didactically should



not ask questions but make things clear himself; the other should



merely ask questions。







                                11







  Moreover; to claim a 'Yes' or 'No' answer is the business not of a



man who is showing something; but of one who is holding an



examination。 For the art of examining is a branch of dialectic and has



in view not the man who has knowledge; but the ignorant pretender。 He;



then; is a dialectician who regards the common principles with their



application to the particular matter in hand; while he who only



appears to do this is a sophist。 Now for contentious and sophistical



reasoning: (1) one such is a merely apparent reasoning; on subjects on



which dialectical reasoning is the proper method of examination;



even though its conclusion be true: for it misleads us in regard to



the cause: also (2) there are those misreasonings which do not conform



to the line of inquiry proper to the particular subject; but are



generally thought to conform to the art in question。 For false



diagrams of geometrical figures are not contentious (for the resulting



fallacies conform to the subject of the art)…any more than is any



false diagram that may be offered in proof of a truth…e。g。



Hippocrates' figure or the squaring of the circle by means of the



lunules。 But Bryson's method of squaring the circle; even if the



circle is thereby squared; is still sophistical because it does not



conform to the subject in hand。 So; then; any merely apparent



reasoning about these things is a contentious argument; and any



reasoning that merely appears to conform to the subject in hand;



even though it be genuine reasoning; is a contentious argument: for it



is merely apparent in its conformity to the subject…matter; so that it



is deceptive and plays foul。 For just as a foul in a race is a



definite type of fault; and is a kind of fo
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!