350 BC

ON SOPHISTICAL REFUTATIONS by Aristotle translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge Book I 1 LET us now discuss so !istic re"utations# i.e. w!at a ear to be re"utations but are really "allacies instead. We will begin in t!e natural order wit! t!e "irst. T!at some reasonings are genuine# w!ile ot!ers seem to be so but are not# is e$ident. T!is !a ens wit! arguments# as also elsew!ere# t!roug! a certain likeness between t!e genuine and t!e s!am. %or !ysically some eo le are in a $igorous condition# w!ile ot!ers merely seem to be so by blowing and rigging t!emsel$es out as t!e tribesmen do t!eir $ictims "or sacri"ice& and some eo le are beauti"ul t!anks to t!eir beauty# w!ile ot!ers seem to be so# by dint o" embellis!ing t!emsel$es. 'o it is# too# wit! inanimate t!ings& "or o" t!ese# too# some are really sil$er and ot!ers gold# w!ile ot!ers are not and merely seem to be suc! to our sense& e.g. t!ings made o" lit!arge and tin seem to be o" sil$er# w!ile t!ose made o" yellow metal look golden. In t!e same way bot! reasoning and re"utation are sometimes genuine# sometimes not# t!oug! ine( erience may make t!em a ear so) "or ine( erienced eo le obtain only# as it were# a distant $iew o" t!ese t!ings. %or reasoning rests on certain statements suc! t!at t!ey in$ol$e necessarily t!e assertion o" somet!ing ot!er t!an w!at !as been stated# t!roug! w!at !as been stated) re"utation is reasoning in$ol$ing t!e contradictory o" t!e gi$en conclusion. *ow some o" t!em do not really ac!ie$e t!is# t!oug! t!ey seem to do so "or a number o" reasons& and o" t!ese t!e most roli"ic and usual domain is t!e argument t!at turns u on names only. It is im ossible in a discussion to bring in t!e actual t!ings discussed) we use t!eir names as symbols instead o" t!em& and t!ere"ore we su ose t!at w!at "ollows in t!e names# "ollows in t!e t!ings as well# +ust as eo le w!o calculate su ose in regard to t!eir counters. But t!e two cases ,names and t!ings- are not alike. %or names are "inite and so is t!e sum-total o" "ormulae# w!ile t!ings are in"inite in number. Ine$itably# t!en# t!e same "ormulae# and a single name# !a$e a number o" meanings. Accordingly +ust as# in counting# t!ose w!o are not cle$er in mani ulating t!eir counters are taken in by t!e e( erts# in t!e same way in arguments too t!ose w!o are not well ac.uainted wit! t!e "orce o" names misreason bot! in t!eir own discussions and w!en t!ey listen to ot!ers. %or t!is reason# t!en# and "or ot!ers to be mentioned later# t!ere e(ists bot! reasoning and re"utation t!at is a arent but not real. *ow "or some eo le it is better wort! w!ile to seem to be wise# t!an to be wise wit!out seeming to be ,"or t!e art o" t!e so !ist is t!e semblance o" wisdom wit!out t!e reality# and t!e so !ist is one w!o makes money "rom an a arent but unreal wisdom-& "or t!em# t!en# it is clearly essential also to seem to accom lis! t!e task o" a wise man rat!er t!an to accom lis! it wit!out seeming to do so. To reduce it to a single oint o" contrast it is t!e business o" one w!o knows a t!ing# !imsel" to a$oid "allacies in t!e sub+ects w!ic! !e knows and to be able to s!ow u t!e man w!o makes t!em& and o" t!ese accom lis!ments t!e one de ends on t!e "aculty to render an answer# and t!e ot!er u on t!e securing o" one. T!ose# t!en# w!o would be so !ists are bound to study t!e class o" arguments a"oresaid) "or it is wort! t!eir w!ile) "or a "aculty o" t!is kind will make a man seem to be wise# and t!is is t!e ur ose t!ey !a en to !a$e in $iew.

Clearly# t!en# t!ere e(ists a class o" arguments o" t!is kind# and it is at t!is kind o" ability t!at t!ose aim w!om we call so !ists. Let us now go on to discuss !ow many kinds t!ere are o" so !istical arguments# and !ow many in number are t!e elements o" w!ic! t!is "aculty is com osed# and !ow many branc!es t!ere !a en to be o" t!is in.uiry# and t!e ot!er "actors t!at contribute to t!is art. / 0" arguments in dialogue "orm t!ere are "our classes) 1idactic# 1ialectical# E(amination-arguments# and Contentious arguments. 1idactic arguments are t!ose t!at reason "rom t!e rinci les a ro riate to eac! sub+ect and not "rom t!e o inions !eld by t!e answerer ,"or t!e learner s!ould take t!ings on trust-) dialectical arguments are t!ose t!at reason "rom remisses generally acce ted# to t!e contradictory o" a gi$en t!esis) e(amination-arguments are t!ose t!at reason "rom remisses w!ic! are acce ted by t!e answerer and w!ic! any one w!o retends to ossess knowledge o" t!e sub+ect is bound to know-in w!at manner# !as been de"ined in anot!er treatise) contentious arguments are t!ose t!at reason or a ear to reason to a conclusion "rom remisses t!at a ear to be generally acce ted but are not so. T!e sub+ect# t!en# o" demonstrati$e arguments !as been discussed in t!e Analytics# w!ile t!at o" dialectic arguments and e(amination-arguments !as been discussed elsew!ere) let us now roceed to s eak o" t!e arguments used in com etitions and contests. 2 %irst we must gras t!e number o" aims entertained by t!ose w!o argue as com etitors and ri$als to t!e deat!. T!ese are "i$e in number# re"utation# "allacy# arado(# solecism# and "i"t!ly to reduce t!e o onent in t!e discussion to babbling-i.e. to constrain !im to re eat !imsel" a number o" times) or it is to roduce t!e a earance o" eac! o" t!ese t!ings wit!out t!e reality. %or t!ey c!oose i" ossible lainly to re"ute t!e ot!er arty# or as t!e second best to s!ow t!at !e is committing some "allacy# or as a t!ird best to lead !im into arado(# or "ourt!ly to reduce !im to solecism# i.e. to make t!e answerer# in conse.uence o" t!e argument# to use an ungrammatical e( ression& or# as a last resort# to make !im re eat !imsel". 3 T!ere are two styles o" re"utation) "or some de end on t!e language used# w!ile some are inde endent o" language. T!ose ways o" roducing t!e "alse a earance o" an argument w!ic! de end on language are si( in number) t!ey are ambiguity# am !iboly# combination# di$ision o" words# accent# "orm o" e( ression. 0" t!is we may assure oursel$es bot! by induction# and by syllogistic roo" based on t!is-and it may be on ot!er assum tions as well-t!at t!is is t!e number o" ways in w!ic! we mig!t "all to mean t!e same t!ing by t!e same names or e( ressions. Arguments suc! as t!e "ollowing de end u on ambiguity. 4T!ose learn w!o know) "or it is t!ose w!o know t!eir letters w!o learn t!e letters dictated to t!em5. %or to 4learn5 is ambiguous& it signi"ies bot! 4to understand5 by t!e use o" knowledge# and also 4to ac.uire knowledge5. Again# 4E$ils are good) "or w!at needs to be is good# and e$ils must needs be5. %or 4w!at needs to be5 !as a double meaning) it means w!at is ine$itable# as o"ten is t!e case wit! e$ils# too ,"or e$il o" some kind is ine$itable-# w!ile on t!e ot!er !and we say o" good t!ings as well t!at t!ey 4need to be5. 6oreo$er# 4T!e same man is bot! seated and standing and !e is bot! sick and in !ealt!) "or it is !e w!o stood u w!o is standing# and !e w!o is reco$ering w!o is in !ealt!) but it is t!e seated man w!o stood u # and t!e sick man w!o was reco$ering5. %or 4T!e sick man does so and so5# or 4!as so and so done to !im5 is not single in meaning) sometimes it means 4t!e man w!o is sick or is seated now5# sometimes 4t!e

man w!o was sick "ormerly5. 0" course# t!e man w!o was reco$ering was t!e sick man# w!o really was sick at t!e time) but t!e man w!o is in !ealt! is not sick at t!e same time) !e is 4t!e sick man5 in t!e sense not t!at !e is sick now# but t!at !e was sick "ormerly. E(am les suc! as t!e "ollowing de end u on am !iboly) 4I wis! t!at you t!e enemy may ca ture5. Also t!e t!esis# 4T!ere must be knowledge o" w!at one knows5) "or it is ossible by t!is !rase to mean t!at knowledge belongs to bot! t!e knower and t!e known. Also# 4T!ere must be sig!t o" w!at one sees) one sees t!e illar) ergo t!e illar !as sig!t5. Also# 4W!at you ro"ess to-be# t!at you ro"ess to-be) you ro"ess a stone to-be) ergo you ro"ess-to-be a stone5. Also# 4' eaking o" t!e silent is ossible5) "or 4s eaking o" t!e silent5 also !as a double meaning) it may mean t!at t!e s eaker is silent or t!at t!e t!ings o" w!ic! !e s eaks are so. T!ere are t!ree $arieties o" t!ese ambiguities and am !ibolies) ,1- W!en eit!er t!e e( ression or t!e name !as strictly more t!an one meaning# e.g. aetos and t!e 4dog5& ,/- w!en by custom we use t!em so& ,2- w!en words t!at !a$e a sim le sense taken alone !a$e more t!an one meaning in combination& e.g. 4knowing letters5. %or eac! word# bot! 4knowing5 and 4letters5# ossibly !as a single meaning) but bot! toget!er !a$e more t!an oneeit!er t!at t!e letters t!emsel$es !a$e knowledge or t!at someone else !as it o" t!em. Am !iboly and ambiguity# t!en# de end on t!ese modes o" s eec!. 7 on t!e combination o" words t!ere de end instances suc! as t!e "ollowing) 4A man can walk w!ile sitting# and can write w!ile not writing5. %or t!e meaning is not t!e same i" one di$ides t!e words and i" one combines t!em in saying t!at 4it is ossible to walk-w!ile-sitting5 and write w!ile not writing8. T!e same a lies to t!e latter !rase# too# i" one combines t!e words 4to write-w!ile-not-writing5) "or t!en it means t!at !e !as t!e ower to write and not to write at once& w!ereas i" one does not combine t!em# it means t!at w!en !e is not writing !e !as t!e ower to write. Also# 49e now i" !e !as learnt !is letters5. 6oreo$er# t!ere is t!e saying t!at 40ne single t!ing i" you can carry a crowd you can carry too5. 7 on di$ision de end t!e ro ositions t!at : is / and 2# and odd# and t!at t!e greater is e.ual) "or it is t!at amount and more besides. %or t!e same !rase would not be t!oug!t always to !a$e t!e same meaning w!en di$ided and w!en combined# e.g. 4I made t!ee a sla$e once a "ree man5# and 4;od-like Ac!illes le"t "i"ty a !undred men5. An argument de ending u on accent it is not easy to construct in unwritten discussion& in written discussions and in oetry it is easier. T!us ,e.g.- some eo le emend 9omer against t!ose w!o critici<e as unnatural !is e( ression to men ou kata ut!etai ombro. %or t!ey sol$e t!e di""iculty by a c!ange o" accent# ronouncing t!e ou wit! an acuter accent. Also# in t!e assage about Agamemnon5s dream# t!ey say t!at =eus did not !imsel" say 4We grant !im t!e "ul"ilment o" !is rayer5# but t!at !e bade t!e dream grant it. Instances suc! as t!ese# t!en# turn u on t!e accentuation. 0t!ers come about owing to t!e "orm o" e( ression used# w!en w!at is really di""erent is e( ressed in t!e same "orm# e.g. a masculine t!ing by a "eminine termination# or a "eminine t!ing by a masculine# or a neuter by eit!er a masculine or a "eminine& or# again# w!en a .uality is e( ressed by a termination ro er to .uantity or $ice $ersa# or w!at is acti$e by a assi$e word# or a state by an acti$e word# and so "ort! wit! t!e ot!er di$isions re$iously5 laid down. %or it is ossible to use an e( ression to denote w!at does not belong to t!e class o" actions at all as t!oug! it did so belong. T!us ,e.g.- 4"louris!ing5 is a word w!ic! in t!e "orm o" its e( ression is like 4cutting5 or 4building5)

yet t!e one denotes a certain .uality-i.e. a certain condition-w!ile t!e ot!er denotes a certain action. In t!e same manner also in t!e ot!er instances. >e"utations# t!en# t!at de end u on language are drawn "rom t!ese common- lace rules. 0" "allacies# on t!e ot!er !and# t!at are inde endent o" language t!ere are se$en kinds) ,1- t!at w!ic! de ends u on Accident) ,/- t!e use o" an e( ression absolutely or not absolutely but wit! some .uali"ication o" res ect or lace# or time# or relation) ,2- t!at w!ic! de ends u on ignorance o" w!at 4re"utation5 is) ,3- t!at w!ic! de ends u on t!e conse.uent) ,:- t!at w!ic! de ends u on assuming t!e original conclusion) ,?- stating as cause w!at is not t!e cause) ,@- t!e making o" more t!an one .uestion into one. : %allacies# t!en# t!at de end on Accident occur w!ene$er any attribute is claimed to belong in like manner to a t!ing and to its accident. %or since t!e same t!ing !as many accidents t!ere is no necessity t!at all t!e same attributes s!ould belong to all o" a t!ing5s redicates and to t!eir sub+ect as well. T!us ,e.g.-# 4I" Coriscus be di""erent "rom AmanB# !e is di""erent "rom !imsel") "or !e is a man5) or 4I" !e be di""erent "rom 'ocrates# and 'ocrates be a man# t!en5# t!ey say# 4!e !as admitted t!at Coriscus is di""erent "rom a man# because it so !a ens ,accidit- t!at t!e erson "rom w!om !e said t!at !e ,Coriscus- is di""erent is a man5. T!ose t!at de end on w!et!er an e( ression is used absolutely or in a certain res ect and not strictly# occur w!ene$er an e( ression used in a articular sense is taken as t!oug! it were used absolutely# e.g. in t!e argument 4I" w!at is not is t!e ob+ect o" an o inion# t!en w!at is not is5) "or it is not t!e same t!ing 4to be (5 and 4to be5 absolutely. 0r again# 4W!at is# is not# i" it is not a articular kind o" being# e.g. i" it is not a man.5 %or it is not t!e same t!ing 4not to be (5 and 4not to be5 at all) it looks as i" it were# because o" t!e closeness o" t!e e( ression# i.e. because 4to be (5 is but little di""erent "rom 4to be5# and 4not to be (5 "rom 4not to be5. Likewise also wit! any argument t!at turns u on t!e oint w!et!er an e( ression is used in a certain res ect or used absolutely. T!us e.g. 4'u ose an Indian to be black all o$er# but w!ite in res ect o" !is teet!& t!en !e is bot! w!ite and not w!ite.5 0r i" bot! c!aracters belong in a articular res ect# t!en# t!ey say# 4contrary attributes belong at t!e same time5. T!is kind o" t!ing is in some cases easily seen by any one# e.g. su ose a man were to secure t!e statement t!at t!e Et!io ian is black# and were t!en to ask w!et!er !e is w!ite in res ect o" !is teet!& and t!en# i" !e be w!ite in t!at res ect# were to su ose at t!e conclusion o" !is .uestions t!at t!ere"ore !e !ad ro$ed dialectically t!at !e was bot! w!ite and not w!ite. But in some cases it o"ten asses undetected# $i<. in all cases w!ere# w!ene$er a statement is made o" somet!ing in a certain res ect# it would be generally t!oug!t t!at t!e absolute statement "ollows as well& and also in all cases w!ere it is not easy to see w!ic! o" t!e attributes oug!t to be rendered strictly. A situation o" t!is kind arises# w!ere bot! t!e o osite attributes belong alike) "or t!en t!ere is general su ort "or t!e $iew t!at one must agree absolutely to t!e assertion o" bot!# or o" neit!er) e.g. i" a t!ing is !al" w!ite and !al" black# is it w!ite or blackC 0t!er "allacies occur because t!e terms 4 roo"5 or 4re"utation5 !a$e not been de"ined# and because somet!ing is le"t out in t!eir de"inition. %or to re"ute is to contradict one and t!e same attribute-not merely t!e name# but t!e reality-and a name t!at is not merely synonymous but t!e same name-and

to con"ute it "rom t!e ro ositions granted# necessarily# wit!out including in t!e reckoning t!e original oint to be ro$ed# in t!e same res ect and relation and manner and time in w!ic! it was asserted. A 4"alse assertion5 about anyt!ing !as to be de"ined in t!e same way. 'ome eo le# !owe$er# omit some one o" t!e said conditions and gi$e a merely a arent re"utation# s!owing ,e.g.- t!at t!e same t!ing is bot! double and not double) "or two is double o" one# but not double o" t!ree. 0r# it may be# t!ey s!ow t!at it is bot! double and not double o" t!e same t!ing# but not t!at it is so in t!e same res ect) "or it is double in lengt! but not double in breadt!. 0r# it may be# t!ey s!ow it to be bot! double and not double o" t!e same t!ing and in t!e same res ect and manner# but not t!at it is so at t!e same time) and t!ere"ore t!eir re"utation is merely a arent. 0ne mig!t# wit! some $iolence# bring t!is "allacy into t!e grou o" "allacies de endent on language as well. T!ose t!at de end on t!e assum tion o" t!e original oint to be ro$ed# occur in t!e same way# and in as many ways# as it is ossible to beg t!e original oint& t!ey a ear to re"ute because men lack t!e ower to kee t!eir eyes at once u on w!at is t!e same and w!at is di""erent. T!e re"utation w!ic! de ends u on t!e conse.uent arises because eo le su ose t!at t!e relation o" conse.uence is con$ertible. %or w!ene$er# su ose A is# B necessarily is# t!ey t!en su ose also t!at i" B is# A necessarily is. T!is is also t!e source o" t!e dece tions t!at attend o inions based on sense- erce tion. %or eo le o"ten su ose bile to be !oney because !oney is attended by a yellow colour) also# since a"ter rain t!e ground is wet in conse.uence# we su ose t!at i" t!e ground is wet# it !as been raining& w!ereas t!at does not necessarily "ollow. In r!etoric roo"s "rom signs are based on conse.uences. %or w!en r!etoricians wis! to s!ow t!at a man is an adulterer# t!ey take !old o" some conse.uence o" an adulterous li"e# $i<. t!at t!e man is smartly dressed# or t!at !e is obser$ed to wander about at nig!t. T!ere are# !owe$er# many eo le o" w!om t!ese t!ings are true# w!ile t!e c!arge in .uestion is untrue. It !a ens like t!is also in real reasoning& e.g. 6elissus5 argument# t!at t!e uni$erse is eternal# assumes t!at t!e uni$erse !as not come to be ,"or "rom w!at is not not!ing could ossibly come to be- and t!at w!at !as come to be !as done so "rom a "irst beginning. I"# t!ere"ore# t!e uni$erse !as not come to be# it !as no "irst beginning# and is t!ere"ore eternal. But t!is does not necessarily "ollow) "or e$en i" w!at !as come to be always !as a "irst beginning# it does not also "ollow t!at w!at !as a "irst beginning !as come to be& any more t!an it "ollows t!at i" a man in a "e$er be !ot# a man w!o is !ot must be in a "e$er. T!e re"utation w!ic! de ends u on treating as cause w!at is not a cause# occurs w!ene$er w!at is not a cause is inserted in t!e argument# as t!oug! t!e re"utation de ended u on it. T!is kind o" t!ing !a ens in arguments t!at reason ad im ossible) "or in t!ese we are bound to demolis! one o" t!e remisses. I"# t!en# t!e "alse cause be reckoned in among t!e .uestions t!at are necessary to establis! t!e resulting im ossibility# it will o"ten be t!oug!t t!at t!e re"utation de ends u on it# e.g. in t!e roo" t!at t!e 4soul5 and 4li"e5 are not t!e same) "or i" coming-to-be be contrary to eris!ing# t!en a articular "orm o" eris!ing will !a$e a articular "orm o" coming-to-be as its contrary) now deat! is a articular "orm o" eris!ing and is contrary to li"e) li"e# t!ere"ore# is a coming to-be# and to li$e is to come-to-be. But t!is is im ossible) accordingly# t!e 4soul5 and 4li"e5 are not t!e same. *ow t!is is not ro$ed) "or t!e im ossibility results all t!e same# e$en i" one does not say t!at li"e is t!e same as t!e soul# but merely says t!at li"e is contrary to deat!# w!ic! is a "orm o" eris!ing# and t!at eris!ing !as 4coming-to-be5 as its contrary. Arguments o" t!at kind# t!en# t!oug! not inconclusi$e absolutely# are inconclusi$e in relation to t!e ro osed conclusion. Also e$en t!e .uestioners t!emsel$es o"ten "ail .uite as muc! to see a oint o" t!at kind. 'uc!# t!en# are t!e arguments t!at de end u on t!e conse.uent and u on "alse cause. T!ose t!at de end u on t!e making o" two .uestions into one occur w!ene$er t!e lurality is undetected and a

single answer is returned as i" to a single .uestion. *ow# in some cases# it is easy to see t!at t!ere is more t!an one# and t!at an answer is not to be gi$en# e.g. 41oes t!e eart! consist o" sea# or t!e skyC5 But in some cases it is less easy# and t!en eo le treat t!e .uestion as one# and eit!er con"ess t!eir de"eat by "ailing to answer t!e .uestion# or are e( osed to an a arent re"utation. T!us 4Is A and is B a manC5 4Des.5 4T!en i" any one !its A and B# !e will strike a man5 ,singular-#5not men5 , lural-. 0r again# w!ere art is good and art bad# 4is t!e w!ole good or badC5 %or w!ic!e$er !e says# it is ossible t!at !e mig!t be t!oug!t to e( ose !imsel" to an a arent re"utation or to make an a arently "alse statement) "or to say t!at somet!ing is good w!ic! is not good# or not good w!ic! is good# is to make a "alse statement. 'ometimes# !owe$er# additional remisses may actually gi$e rise to a genuine re"utation& e.g. su ose a man were to grant t!at t!e descri tions 4w!ite5 and 4naked5 and 4blind5 a ly to one t!ing and to a number o" t!ings in a like sense. %or i" 4blind5 describes a t!ing t!at cannot see t!oug! nature designed it to see# it will also describe t!ings t!at cannot see t!oug! nature designed t!em to do so. W!ene$er# t!en# one t!ing can see w!ile anot!er cannot# t!ey will eit!er bot! be able to see or else bot! be blind& w!ic! is im ossible. ? T!e rig!t way# t!en# is eit!er to di$ide a arent roo"s and re"utations as abo$e# or else to re"er t!em all to ignorance o" w!at 4re"utation5 is# and make t!at our starting- oint) "or it is ossible to analyse all t!e a"oresaid modes o" "allacy into breac!es o" t!e de"inition o" a re"utation. In t!e "irst lace# we may see i" t!ey are inconclusi$e) "or t!e conclusion oug!t to result "rom t!e remisses laid down# so as to com el us necessarily to state it and not merely to seem to com el us. *e(t we s!ould also take t!e de"inition bit by bit# and try t!e "allacy t!ereby. %or o" t!e "allacies t!at consist in language# some de end u on a double meaning# e.g. ambiguity o" words and o" !rases# and t!e "allacy o" like $erbal "orms ,"or we !abitually s eak o" e$eryt!ing as t!oug! it were a articular substance--w!ile "allacies o" combination and di$ision and accent arise because t!e !rase in .uestion or t!e term as altered is not t!e same as was intended. E$en t!is# !owe$er# s!ould be t!e same# +ust as t!e t!ing signi"ied s!ould be as well# i" a re"utation or roo" is to be e""ected& e.g. i" t!e oint concerns a doublet# t!en you s!ould draw t!e conclusion o" a 4doublet5# not o" a 4cloak5. %or t!e "ormer conclusion also would be true# but it !as not been ro$ed& we need a "urt!er .uestion to s!ow t!at 4doublet5 means t!e same t!ing# in order to satis"y any one w!o asks w!y you t!ink your oint ro$ed. %allacies t!at de end on Accident are clear cases o" ignoratio elenc!i w!en once 4 roo"5 !as been de"ined. %or t!e same de"inition oug!t to !old good o" 4re"utation5 too# e(ce t t!at a mention o" 4t!e contradictory5 is !ere added) "or a re"utation is a roo" o" t!e contradictory. I"# t!en# t!ere is no roo" as regards an accident o" anyt!ing# t!ere is no re"utation. %or su osing# w!en A and B are# C must necessarily be# and C is w!ite# t!ere is no necessity "or it to be w!ite on account o" t!e syllogism. 'o# i" t!e triangle !as its angles e.ual to two rig!t-angles# and it !a ens to be a "igure# or t!e sim lest element or starting oint# it is not because it is a "igure or a starting oint or sim lest element t!at it !as t!is c!aracter. %or t!e demonstration ro$es t!e oint about it not .ua "igure or .ua sim lest element# but .ua triangle. Likewise also in ot!er cases. I"# t!en# re"utation is a roo"# an argument w!ic! argued er accidens could not be a re"utation. It is# !owe$er# +ust in t!is t!at t!e e( erts and men o" science generally su""er re"utation at t!e !and o" t!e unscienti"ic) "or t!e latter meet t!e scientists wit! reasonings constituted er accidens& and t!e scientists "or lack o" t!e ower to draw distinctions eit!er say 4Des5 to t!eir .uestions# or else eo le su ose t!em to !a$e said 4Des5# alt!oug! t!ey !a$e not.

T!ose t!at de end u on w!et!er somet!ing is said in a certain res ect only or said absolutely# are clear cases o" ignoratio elenc!i because t!e a""irmation and t!e denial are not concerned wit! t!e same oint. %or o" 4w!ite in a certain res ect5 t!e negation is 4not w!ite in a certain res ect5# w!ile o" 4w!ite absolutely5 it is 4not w!ite# absolutely5. I"# t!en# a man treats t!e admission t!at a t!ing is 4w!ite in a certain res ect5 as t!oug! it were said to be w!ite absolutely# !e does not e""ect a re"utation# but merely a ears to do so owing to ignorance o" w!at re"utation is. T!e clearest cases o" all# !owe$er# are t!ose t!at were re$iously described5 as de ending u on t!e de"inition o" a 4re"utation5) and t!is is also w!y t!ey were called by t!at name. %or t!e a earance o" a re"utation is roduced because o" t!e omission in t!e de"inition# and i" we di$ide "allacies in t!e abo$e manner# we oug!t to set 41e"ecti$e de"inition5 as a common mark u on t!em all. T!ose t!at de end u on t!e assum tion o" t!e original oint and u on stating as t!e cause w!at is not t!e cause# are clearly s!own to be cases o" ignoratio elenc!i t!roug! t!e de"inition t!ereo". %or t!e conclusion oug!t to come about 4because t!ese t!ings are so5# and t!is does not !a en w!ere t!e remisses are not causes o" it) and again it s!ould come about wit!out taking into account t!e original oint# and t!is is not t!e case wit! t!ose arguments w!ic! de end u on begging t!e original oint. T!ose t!at de end u on t!e assum tion o" t!e original oint and u on stating as t!e cause w!at is not t!e cause# are clearly s!own to be cases o" ignoratio elenc!i t!roug! t!e de"inition t!ereo". %or t!e conclusion oug!t to come about 4because t!ese t!ings are so5# and t!is does not !a en w!ere t!e remisses are not causes o" it) and again it s!ould come about wit!out taking into account t!e original oint# and t!is is not t!e case wit! t!ose arguments w!ic! de end u on begging t!e original oint. T!ose t!at de end u on t!e conse.uent are a branc! o" Accident) "or t!e conse.uent is an accident# only it di""ers "rom t!e accident in t!is# t!at you may secure an admission o" t!e accident in t!e case o" one t!ing only ,e.g. t!e identity o" a yellow t!ing and !oney and o" a w!ite t!ing and swan-# w!ereas t!e conse.uent always in$ol$es more t!an one t!ing) "or we claim t!at t!ings t!at are t!e same as one and t!e same t!ing are also t!e same as one anot!er# and t!is is t!e ground o" a re"utation de endent on t!e conse.uent. It is# !owe$er# not always true# e.g. su ose t!at and B are t!e same as C er accidens& "or bot! 4snow5 and t!e 4swan5 are t!e same as somet!ing w!ite5. 0r again# as in 6elissus5 argument# a man assumes t!at to 4!a$e been generated5 and to 4!a$e a beginning5 are t!e same t!ing# or to 4become e.ual5 and to 4assume t!e same magnitude5. %or because w!at !as been generated !as a beginning# !e claims also t!at w!at !as a beginning !as been generated# and argues as t!oug! bot! w!at !as been generated and w!at is "inite were t!e same because eac! !as a beginning. Likewise also in t!e case o" t!ings t!at are made e.ual !e assumes t!at i" t!ings t!at assume one and t!e same magnitude become e.ual# t!en also t!ings t!at become e.ual assume one magnitude) i.e. !e assumes t!e conse.uent. Inasmuc!# t!en# as a re"utation de ending on accident consists in ignorance o" w!at a re"utation is# clearly so also does a re"utation de ending on t!e conse.uent. We s!all !a$e "urt!er to e(amine t!is in anot!er way as well. T!ose "allacies t!at de end u on t!e making o" se$eral .uestions into one consist in our "ailure to dissect t!e de"inition o" 4 ro osition5. %or a ro osition is a single statement about a single t!ing. %or t!e same de"inition a lies to 4one single t!ing only5 and to t!e 4t!ing5# sim ly# e.g. to 4man5 and to 4one single man only5 and likewise also in ot!er cases. I"# t!en# a 4single ro osition5 be one w!ic! claims a single t!ing o" a single t!ing# a 4 ro osition5# sim ly# will also be t!e utting o" a

.uestion o" t!at kind. *ow since a roo" starts "rom ro ositions and re"utation is a roo"# re"utation# too# will start "rom ro ositions. I"# t!en# a ro osition is a single statement about a single t!ing# it is ob$ious t!at t!is "allacy too consists in ignorance o" w!at a re"utation is) "or in it w!at is not a ro osition a ears to be one. I"# t!en# t!e answerer !as returned an answer as t!oug! to a single .uestion# t!ere will be a re"utation& w!ile i" !e !as returned one not really but a arently# t!ere will be an a arent re"utation o" !is t!esis. All t!e ty es o" "allacy# t!en# "all under ignorance o" w!at a re"utation is# some o" t!em because t!e contradiction# w!ic! is t!e distincti$e mark o" a re"utation# is merely a arent# and t!e rest "ailing to con"orm to t!e de"inition o" a roo". @ T!e dece tion comes about in t!e case o" arguments t!at de end on ambiguity o" words and o" !rases because we are unable to di$ide t!e ambiguous term ,"or some terms it is not easy to di$ide# e.g. 4unity5# 4being5# and 4sameness5-# w!ile in t!ose t!at de end on combination and di$ision# it is because we su ose t!at it makes no di""erence w!et!er t!e !rase be combined or di$ided# as is indeed t!e case wit! most !rases. Likewise also wit! t!ose t!at de end on accent) "or t!e lowering or raising o" t!e $oice u on a !rase is t!oug!t not to alter its meaning-wit! any !rase# or not wit! many. Wit! t!ose t!at de end on t!e o" e( ression it is because o" t!e likeness o" e( ression. %or it is !ard to distinguis! w!at kind o" t!ings are signi"ied by t!e same and w!at by di""erent kinds o" e( ression) "or a man w!o can do t!is is ractically ne(t door to t!e understanding o" t!e trut!. A s ecial reason w!y a man is liable to be !urried into assent to t!e "allacy is t!at we su ose e$ery redicate o" e$eryt!ing to be an indi$idual t!ing# and we understand it as being one wit! t!e t!ing) and we t!ere"ore treat it as a substance) "or it is to t!at w!ic! is one wit! a t!ing or substance# as also to substance itsel"# t!at 4indi$idually5 and 4being5 are deemed to belong in t!e "ullest sense. %or t!is reason# too# t!is ty e o" "allacy is to be ranked among t!ose t!at de end on language& in t!e "irst lace# because t!e dece tion is e""ected t!e more readily w!en we are in.uiring into a roblem in com any wit! ot!ers t!an w!en we do so by oursel$es ,"or an in.uiry wit! anot!er erson is carried on by means o" s eec!# w!ereas an in.uiry by onesel" is carried on .uite as muc! by means o" t!e ob+ect itsel"-& secondly a man is liable to be decei$ed# e$en w!en in.uiring by !imsel"# w!en !e takes s eec! as t!e basis o" !is in.uiry) moreo$er t!e dece tion arises out o" t!e likeness ,o" two di""erent t!ings-# and t!e likeness arises out o" t!e language. Wit! t!ose "allacies t!at de end u on Accident# dece tion comes about because we cannot distinguis! t!e sameness and ot!erness o" terms# i.e. t!eir unity and multi licity# or w!at kinds o" redicate !a$e all t!e same accidents as t!eir sub+ect. Likewise also wit! t!ose t!at de end on t!e Conse.uent) "or t!e conse.uent is a branc! o" Accident. 6oreo$er# in many cases a earances oint to t!is-and t!e claim is made t!at i" is inse arable "rom B# so also is B "rom Wit! t!ose t!at de end u on an im er"ection in t!e de"inition o" a re"utation# and wit! t!ose t!at de end u on t!e di""erence between a .uali"ied and an absolute statement# t!e dece tion consists in t!e smallness o" t!e di""erence in$ol$ed& "or we treat t!e limitation to t!e articular t!ing or res ect or manner or time as adding not!ing to t!e meaning# and so grant t!e statement uni$ersally. Likewise also in t!e case o" t!ose t!at assume t!e original oint# and t!ose o" "alse cause# and all t!at treat a number o" .uestions as one) "or in all o" t!em t!e dece tion lies in t!e smallness o" t!e di""erence) "or our "ailure to be .uite e(act in our de"inition o" 4 remiss5 and o" 4 roo"5 is due to t!e a"oresaid reason. E

'ince we know on !ow many oints a arent syllogisms de end# we know also on !ow many so !istical syllogisms and re"utations may de end. By a so !istical re"utation and syllogism I mean not only a syllogism or re"utation w!ic! a ears to be $alid but is not# but also one w!ic!# t!oug! it is $alid# only a ears to be a ro riate to t!e t!ing in .uestion. T!ese are t!ose w!ic! "ail to re"ute and ro$e eo le to be ignorant according to t!e nature o" t!e t!ing in .uestion# w!ic! was t!e "unction o" t!e art o" e(amination. *ow t!e art o" e(amining is a branc! o" dialectic) and t!is may ro$e a "alse conclusion because o" t!e ignorance o" t!e answerer. 'o !istic re"utations on t!e ot!er !and# e$en t!oug! t!ey ro$e t!e contradictory o" !is t!esis# do not make clear w!et!er !e is ignorant) "or so !ists entangle t!e scientist as well wit! t!ese arguments. T!at we know t!em by t!e same line o" in.uiry is clear) "or t!e same considerations w!ic! make it a ear to an audience t!at t!e oints re.uired "or t!e roo" were asked in t!e .uestions and t!at t!e conclusion was ro$ed# would make t!e answerer t!ink so as well# so t!at "alse roo" will occur t!roug! all or some o" t!ese means) "or w!at a man !as not been asked but t!inks !e !as granted# !e would also grant i" !e were asked. 0" course# in some cases t!e moment we add t!e missing .uestion# we also s!ow u its "alsity# e.g. in "allacies t!at de end on language and on solecism. I" t!en# "allacious roo"s o" t!e contradictory o" a t!esis de end on t!eir a earing to re"ute# it is clear t!at t!e considerations on w!ic! bot! roo"s o" "alse conclusions and an a arent re"utation de end must be t!e same in number. *ow an a arent re"utation de ends u on t!e elements in$ol$ed in a genuine one) "or t!e "ailure o" one or ot!er o" t!ese must make t!e re"utation merely a arent# e.g. t!at w!ic! de ends on t!e "ailure o" t!e conclusion to "ollow "rom t!e argument ,t!e argument ad im ossible- and t!at w!ic! treats two .uestions as one and so de ends u on a "law in t!e remiss# and t!at w!ic! de ends on t!e substitution o" an accident "or an essential attribute# and-a branc! o" t!e last-t!at w!ic! de ends u on t!e conse.uent) more o$er# t!e conclusion may "ollow not in "act but only $erbally) t!en# instead o" ro$ing t!e contradictory uni$ersally and in t!e same res ect and relation and manner# t!e "allacy may be de endent on some limit o" e(tent or on one or ot!er o" t!ese .uali"ications) moreo$er# t!ere is t!e assum tion o" t!e original oint to be ro$ed# in $iolation o" t!e clause 4wit!out reckoning in t!e original oint5. T!us we s!ould !a$e t!e number o" considerations on w!ic! t!e "allacious roo"s de end) "or t!ey could not de end on more# but all will de end on t!e oints a"oresaid. A so !istical re"utation is a re"utation not absolutely but relati$ely to some one) and so is a roo"# in t!e same way. %or unless t!at w!ic! de ends u on ambiguity assumes t!at t!e ambiguous term !as a single meaning# and t!at w!ic! de ends on like $erbal "orms assumes t!at substance is t!e only category# and t!e rest in t!e same way# t!ere will be neit!er re"utations nor roo"s# eit!er absolutely or relati$ely to t!e answerer) w!ereas i" t!ey do assume t!ese t!ings# t!ey will stand# relati$ely to t!e answerer& but absolutely t!ey will not stand) "or t!ey !a$e not secured a statement t!at does !a$e a single meaning# but only one t!at a ears to !a$e# and t!at only "rom t!is articular man. F T!e number o" considerations on w!ic! de end t!e re"utations o" t!ose w!o are re"uted# we oug!t not to try to gras wit!out a knowledge o" e$eryt!ing t!at is. T!is# !owe$er# is not t!e ro$ince o" any s ecial study) "or ossibly t!e sciences are in"inite in number# so t!at ob$iously demonstrations may be in"inite too. *ow re"utations may be true as well as "alse) "or w!ene$er it is ossible to demonstrate somet!ing# it is also ossible to re"ute t!e man w!o maintains t!e contradictory o" t!e trut!& e.g. i" a man !as stated t!at t!e diagonal is commensurate wit! t!e side o" t!e s.uare# one mig!t re"ute !im by demonstrating t!at it is incommensurate. Accordingly# to e(!aust all ossible

re"utations we s!all !a$e to !a$e scienti"ic knowledge o" e$eryt!ing) "or some re"utations de end u on t!e rinci les t!at rule in geometry and t!e conclusions t!at "ollow "rom t!ese# ot!ers u on t!ose t!at rule in medicine# and ot!ers u on t!ose o" t!e ot!er sciences. %or t!e matter o" t!at# t!e "alse re"utations likewise belong to t!e number o" t!e in"inite) "or according to e$ery art t!ere is "alse roo"# e.g. according to geometry t!ere is "alse geometrical roo"# and according to medicine t!ere is "alse medical roo". By 4according to t!e art5# I mean 4according to t!e rinci les o" it5. Clearly# t!en# it is not o" all re"utations# but only o" t!ose t!at de end u on dialectic t!at we need to gras t!e common- lace rules) "or t!ese stand in a common relation to e$ery art and "aculty. And as regards t!e re"utation t!at is according to one or ot!er o" t!e articular sciences it is t!e task o" t!at articular scientist to e(amine w!et!er it is merely a arent wit!out being real# and# i" it be real# w!at is t!e reason "or it) w!ereas it is t!e business o" dialecticians so to e(amine t!e re"utation t!at roceeds "rom t!e common "irst rinci les t!at "all under no articular s ecial study. %or i" we gras t!e starting oints o" t!e acce ted roo"s on any sub+ect w!ate$er we gras t!ose o" t!e re"utations current on t!at sub+ect. %or a re"utation is t!e roo" o" t!e contradictory o" a gi$en t!esis# so t!at eit!er one or two roo"s o" t!e contradictory constitute a re"utation. We gras # t!en# t!e number o" considerations on w!ic! all suc! de end) i"# !owe$er# we gras t!is# we also gras t!eir solutions as well& "or t!e ob+ections to t!ese are t!e solutions o" t!em. We also gras t!e number o" considerations on w!ic! t!ose re"utations de end# t!at are merely a arent-a arent# I mean# not to e$erybody# but to eo le o" a certain stam & "or it is an inde"inite task i" one is to in.uire !ow many are t!e considerations t!at make t!em a arent to t!e man in t!e street. Accordingly it is clear t!at t!e dialectician5s business is to be able to gras on !ow many considerations de ends t!e "ormation# t!roug! t!e common "irst rinci les# o" a re"utation t!at is eit!er real or a arent# i.e. eit!er dialectical or a arently dialectical# or suitable "or an e(amination. 1G It is no true distinction between arguments w!ic! some eo le draw w!en t!ey say t!at some arguments are directed against t!e e( ression# and ot!ers against t!e t!oug!t e( ressed) "or it is absurd to su ose t!at some arguments are directed against t!e e( ression and ot!ers against t!e t!oug!t# and t!at t!ey are not t!e same. %or w!at is "ailure to direct an argument against t!e t!oug!t e(ce t w!at occurs w!ene$er a man does not in using t!e e( ression t!ink it to be used in !is .uestion in t!e same sense in w!ic! t!e erson .uestioned granted itC And t!is is t!e same t!ing as to direct t!e argument against t!e e( ression. 0n t!e ot!er !and# it is directed against t!e t!oug!t w!ene$er a man uses t!e e( ression in t!e same sense w!ic! t!e answerer !ad in mind w!en !e granted it. I" now any ,i.e. bot! t!e .uestioner and t!e erson .uestioned-# in dealing wit! an e( ression wit! more t!an one meaning# were to su ose it to !a$e one meaning-as e.g. it may be t!at 4Being5 and 40ne5 !a$e many meanings# and yet bot! t!e answerer answers and t!e .uestioner uts !is .uestion su osing it to be one# and t!e argument is to t!e e""ect t!at 4All t!ings are one5will t!is discussion be directed any more against t!e e( ression t!an against t!e t!oug!t o" t!e erson .uestionedC I"# on t!e ot!er !and# one o" t!em su oses t!e e( ression to !a$e many meanings# it is clear t!at suc! a discussion will not be directed against t!e t!oug!t. 'uc! being t!e meanings o" t!e !rases in .uestion# t!ey clearly cannot describe two se arate classes o" argument. %or# in t!e "irst lace# it is ossible "or any suc! argument as bears more t!an one meaning to be directed against t!e e( ression and against t!e t!oug!t# and ne(t it is ossible "or any argument w!atsoe$er& "or t!e "act o" being directed against t!e t!oug!t consists not in t!e nature o" t!e argument# but in t!e s ecial attitude o" t!e answerer towards t!e oints !e concedes. *e(t# all o" t!em may be directed to t!e e( ression. %or 4to be directed against t!e e( ression5 means in t!is

doctrine 4not to be directed against t!e t!oug!t5. %or i" not all are directed against eit!er e( ression or t!oug!t# t!ere will be certain ot!er arguments directed neit!er against t!e e( ression nor against t!e t!oug!t# w!ereas t!ey say t!at all must be one or t!e ot!er# and di$ide t!em all as directed eit!er against t!e e( ression or against t!e t!oug!t# w!ile ot!ers ,t!ey say- t!ere are none. But in oint o" "act t!ose t!at de end on mere e( ression are only a branc! o" t!ose syllogisms t!at de end on a multi licity o" meanings. %or t!e absurd statement !as actually been made t!at t!e descri tion 4de endent on mere e( ression5 describes all t!e arguments t!at de end on language) w!ereas some o" t!ese are "allacies not because t!e answerer ado ts a articular attitude towards t!em# but because t!e argument itsel" in$ol$es t!e asking o" a .uestion suc! as bears more t!an one meaning. It is# too# altoget!er absurd to discuss >e"utation wit!out "irst discussing Proo") "or a re"utation is a roo"# so t!at one oug!t to discuss roo" as well be"ore describing "alse re"utation) "or a re"utation o" t!at kind is a merely a arent roo" o" t!e contradictory o" a t!esis. Accordingly# t!e reason o" t!e "alsity will be eit!er in t!e roo" or in t!e contradiction ,"or mention o" t!e 4contradiction5 must be added-# w!ile sometimes it is in bot!# i" t!e re"utation be merely a arent. In t!e argument t!at s eaking o" t!e silent is ossible it lies in t!e contradiction# not in t!e roo"& in t!e argument t!at one can gi$e w!at one does not ossess# it lies in bot!& in t!e roo" t!at 9omer5s oem is a "igure t!roug! its being a cycle it lies in t!e roo". An argument t!at does not "ail in eit!er res ect is a true roo". But# to return to t!e oint w!ence our argument digressed# are mat!ematical reasonings directed against t!e t!oug!t# or notC And i" any one t!inks 4triangle5 to be a word wit! many meanings# and granted it in some di""erent sense "rom t!e "igure w!ic! was ro$ed to contain two rig!t angles# !as t!e .uestioner !ere directed !is argument against t!e t!oug!t o" t!e "ormer or notC 6oreo$er# i" t!e e( ression bears many senses# w!ile t!e answerer does not understand or su ose it to !a$e t!em# surely t!e .uestioner !ere !as directed !is argument against !is t!oug!tH 0r !ow else oug!t !e to ut !is .uestion e(ce t by suggesting a distinction-su ose one5s .uestion to be s eaking o" t!e silent ossible or notC5-as "ollows# 4Is t!e answer A*oB in one sense# but ADesB in anot!erC5 I"# t!en# any one were to answer t!at it was not ossible in any sense and t!e ot!er were to argue t!at it was# !as not !is argument been directed against t!e t!oug!t o" t!e answererC Det !is argument is su osed to be one o" t!ose t!at de end on t!e e( ression. T!ere is not# t!en# any de"inite kind o" arguments t!at is directed against t!e t!oug!t. 'ome arguments are# indeed# directed against t!e e( ression) but t!ese are not all e$en a arent re"utations# let alone all re"utations. %or t!ere are also a arent re"utations w!ic! do not de end u on language# e.g. t!ose t!at de end u on accident# and ot!ers. I"# !owe$er# any one claims t!at one s!ould actually draw t!e distinction# and say# 4By As eaking o" t!e silentB I mean# in one sense t!is and in t!e ot!er sense t!at5# surely to claim t!is is in t!e "irst lace absurd ,"or sometimes t!e .uestioner does not see t!e ambiguity o" !is .uestion# and !e cannot ossibly draw a distinction w!ic! !e does not t!ink to be t!ere-) in t!e second lace# w!at else but t!is will didactic argument beC %or it will make mani"est t!e state o" t!e case to one w!o !as ne$er considered# and does not know or su ose t!at t!ere is any ot!er meaning but one. %or w!at is t!ere to re$ent t!e same t!ing also !a ening to us in cases w!ere t!ere is no double meaningC 4Are t!e units in "our e.ual to t!e twosC 0bser$e t!at t!e twos are contained in "our in one sense in t!is way# in anot!er sense in t!at5. Also# 4Is t!e knowledge o" contraries one or notC 0bser$e t!at some contraries are known# w!ile ot!ers are unknown5. T!us t!e man w!o makes t!is claim seems to be unaware o" t!e di""erence between didactic and dialectical argument# and o" t!e

"act t!at w!ile !e w!o argues didactically s!ould not ask .uestions but make t!ings clear !imsel"# t!e ot!er s!ould merely ask .uestions. 11 6oreo$er# to claim a 4Des5 or 4*o5 answer is t!e business not o" a man w!o is s!owing somet!ing# but o" one w!o is !olding an e(amination. %or t!e art o" e(amining is a branc! o" dialectic and !as in $iew not t!e man w!o !as knowledge# but t!e ignorant retender. 9e# t!en# is a dialectician w!o regards t!e common rinci les wit! t!eir a lication to t!e articular matter in !and# w!ile !e w!o only a ears to do t!is is a so !ist. *ow "or contentious and so !istical reasoning) ,1- one suc! is a merely a arent reasoning# on sub+ects on w!ic! dialectical reasoning is t!e ro er met!od o" e(amination# e$en t!oug! its conclusion be true) "or it misleads us in regard to t!e cause) also ,/t!ere are t!ose misreasonings w!ic! do not con"orm to t!e line o" in.uiry ro er to t!e articular sub+ect# but are generally t!oug!t to con"orm to t!e art in .uestion. %or "alse diagrams o" geometrical "igures are not contentious ,"or t!e resulting "allacies con"orm to t!e sub+ect o" t!e art-any more t!an is any "alse diagram t!at may be o""ered in roo" o" a trut!-e.g. 9i ocrates5 "igure or t!e s.uaring o" t!e circle by means o" t!e lunules. But Bryson5s met!od o" s.uaring t!e circle# e$en i" t!e circle is t!ereby s.uared# is still so !istical because it does not con"orm to t!e sub+ect in !and. 'o# t!en# any merely a arent reasoning about t!ese t!ings is a contentious argument# and any reasoning t!at merely a ears to con"orm to t!e sub+ect in !and# e$en t!oug! it be genuine reasoning# is a contentious argument) "or it is merely a arent in its con"ormity to t!e sub+ectmatter# so t!at it is dece ti$e and lays "oul. %or +ust as a "oul in a race is a de"inite ty e o" "ault# and is a kind o" "oul "ig!ting# so t!e art o" contentious reasoning is "oul "ig!ting in dis utation) "or in t!e "ormer case t!ose w!o are resol$ed to win at all costs snatc! at e$eryt!ing# and so in t!e latter case do contentious reasoners. T!ose# t!en# w!o do t!is in order to win t!e mere $ictory are generally considered to be contentious and .uarrelsome ersons# w!ile t!ose w!o do it to win a re utation wit! a $iew to making money are so !istical. %or t!e art o" so !istry is# as we said#5 a kind o" art o" money-making "rom a merely a arent wisdom# and t!is is w!y t!ey aim at a merely a arent demonstration) and .uarrelsome ersons and so !ists bot! em loy t!e same arguments# but not wit! t!e same moti$es) and t!e same argument will be so !istical and contentious# but not in t!e same res ect& rat!er# it will be contentious in so "ar as its aim is an a arent $ictory# w!ile in so "ar as its aim is an a arent wisdom# it will be so !istical) "or t!e art o" so !istry is a certain a earance o" wisdom wit!out t!e reality. T!e contentious argument stands in somew!at t!e same relation to t!e dialectical as t!e drawer o" "alse diagrams to t!e geometrician& "or it beguiles by misreasoning "rom t!e same rinci les as dialectic uses# +ust as t!e drawer o" a "alse diagram beguiles t!e geometrician. But w!ereas t!e latter is not a contentious reasoner# because !e bases !is "alse diagram on t!e rinci les and conclusions t!at "all under t!e art o" geometry# t!e argument w!ic! is subordinate to t!e rinci les o" dialectic will yet clearly be contentious as regards ot!er sub+ects. T!us# e.g. t!oug! t!e s.uaring o" t!e circle by means o" t!e lunules is not contentious# Bryson5s solution is contentious) and t!e "ormer argument cannot be ada ted to any sub+ect e(ce t geometry# because it roceeds "rom rinci les t!at are eculiar to geometry# w!ereas t!e latter can be ada ted as an argument against all t!e number o" eo le w!o do not know w!at is or is not ossible in eac! articular conte(t) "or it will a ly to t!em all. 0r t!ere is t!e met!od w!ereby Anti !on s.uared t!e circle. 0r again# an argument w!ic! denied t!at it was better to take a walk a"ter dinner# because o" =eno5s argument# would not be a ro er argument "or a doctor# because =eno5s argument is o" general a lication. I"# t!en# t!e relation o" t!e contentious argument to t!e dialectical were e(actly like t!at o" t!e drawer o" "alse diagrams to t!e geometrician# a contentious argument u on t!e a"oresaid sub+ects could not !a$e e(isted. But# as it is# t!e dialectical argument

is not concerned wit! any de"inite kind o" being# nor does it s!ow anyt!ing# nor is it e$en an argument suc! as we "ind in t!e general !iloso !y o" being. %or all beings are not contained in any one kind# nor# i" t!ey were# could t!ey ossibly "all under t!e same rinci les. Accordingly# no art t!at is a met!od o" s!owing t!e nature o" anyt!ing roceeds by asking .uestions) "or it does not ermit a man to grant w!ic!e$er !e likes o" t!e two alternati$es in t!e .uestion) "or t!ey will not bot! o" t!em yield a roo". 1ialectic# on t!e ot!er !and# does roceed by .uestioning# w!ereas i" it were concerned to s!ow t!ings# it would !a$e re"rained "rom utting .uestions# e$en i" not about e$eryt!ing# at least about t!e "irst rinci les and t!e s ecial rinci les t!at a ly to t!e articular sub+ect in !and. %or su ose t!e answerer not to grant t!ese# it would t!en no longer !a$e !ad any grounds "rom w!ic! to argue any longer against t!e ob+ection. 1ialectic is at t!e same time a mode o" e(amination as well. %or neit!er is t!e art o" e(amination an accom lis!ment o" t!e same kind as geometry# but one w!ic! a man may ossess# e$en t!oug! !e !as not knowledge. %or it is ossible e$en "or one wit!out knowledge to !old an e(amination o" one w!o is wit!out knowledge# i" also t!e latter grants !im oints taken not "rom t!ing t!at !e knows or "rom t!e s ecial rinci les o" t!e sub+ect under discussion but "rom all t!at range o" conse.uences attac!ing to t!e sub+ect w!ic! a man may indeed know wit!out knowing t!e t!eory o" t!e sub+ect# but w!ic! i" !e do not know# !e is bound to be ignorant o" t!e t!eory. 'o t!en clearly t!e art o" e(amining does not consist in knowledge o" any de"inite sub+ect. %or t!is reason# too# it deals wit! e$eryt!ing) "or e$ery 4t!eory5 o" anyt!ing em loys also certain common rinci les. 9ence e$erybody# including e$en amateurs# makes use in a way o" dialectic and t!e ractice o" e(amining) "or all undertake to some e(tent a roug! trial o" t!ose w!o ro"ess to know t!ings. W!at ser$es t!em !ere is t!e general rinci les) "or t!ey know t!ese o" t!emsel$es +ust as well as t!e scientist# e$en i" in w!at t!ey say t!ey seem to t!e latter to go wildly astray "rom t!em. All# t!en# are engaged in re"utation& "or t!ey take a !and as amateurs in t!e same task wit! w!ic! dialectic is concerned ro"essionally& and !e is a dialectician w!o e(amines by t!e !el o" a t!eory o" reasoning. *ow t!ere are many identical rinci les w!ic! are true o" e$eryt!ing# t!oug! t!ey are not suc! as to constitute a articular nature# i.e. a articular kind o" being# but are like negati$e terms# w!ile ot!er rinci les are not o" t!is kind but are s ecial to articular sub+ects& accordingly it is ossible "rom t!ese general rinci les to !old an e(amination on e$eryt!ing# and t!at t!ere s!ould be a de"inite art o" so doing# and# moreo$er# an art w!ic! is not o" t!e same kind as t!ose w!ic! demonstrate. T!is is w!y t!e contentious reasoner does not stand in t!e same condition in all res ects as t!e drawer o" a "alse diagram) "or t!e contentious reasoner will not be gi$en to misreasoning "rom any de"inite class o" rinci les# but will deal wit! e$ery class. T!ese# t!en# are t!e ty es o" so !istical re"utations) and t!at it belongs to t!e dialectician to study t!ese# and to be able to e""ect t!em# is not di""icult to see) "or t!e in$estigation o" remisses com rises t!e w!ole o" t!is study. 1/ 'o muc!# t!en# "or a arent re"utations. As "or s!owing t!at t!e answerer is committing some "allacy# and drawing !is argument into arado(-"or t!is was t!e second item o" t!e so !ist5s rogramme-in t!e "irst lace# t!en# t!is is best broug!t about by a certain manner o" .uestioning and t!roug! t!e .uestion. %or to ut t!e .uestion wit!out "raming it wit! re"erence to any de"inite sub+ect is a good bait "or t!ese ur oses) "or eo le are more inclined to make mistakes w!en t!ey talk at large# and t!ey talk at large w!en t!ey !a$e no de"inite sub+ect be"ore t!em. Also t!e utting o" se$eral .uestions# e$en t!oug! t!e osition against w!ic! one is arguing be .uite de"inite# and t!e claim t!at !e s!all say only w!at !e t!inks# create abundant o ortunity "or drawing !im into

arado( or "allacy# and also# w!et!er to any o" t!ese .uestions !e re lies 4Des5 or re lies 4*o5# o" leading !im on to statements against w!ic! one is well o"" "or a line o" attack. *owadays# !owe$er# men are less able to lay "oul by t!ese means t!an t!ey were "ormerly) "or eo le re+oin wit! t!e .uestion# 4W!at !as t!at to do wit! t!e original sub+ectC5 It is# too# an elementary rule "or eliciting some "allacy or arado( t!at one s!ould ne$er ut a contro$ersial .uestion straig!t away# but say t!at one uts it "rom t!e wis! "or in"ormation) "or t!e rocess o" in.uiry t!us in$ited gi$es room "or an attack. A rule s ecially a ro riate "or s!owing u a "allacy is t!e so !istic rule# t!at one s!ould draw t!e answerer on to t!e kind o" statements against w!ic! one is well su lied wit! arguments) t!is can be done bot! ro erly and im ro erly# as was said be"ore.5 Again# to draw a arado(ical statement# look and see to w!at sc!ool o" !iloso !ers t!e erson arguing wit! you belongs# and t!en .uestion !im as to some oint w!erein t!eir doctrine is arado(ical to most eo le) "or wit! e$ery sc!ool t!ere is some oint o" t!at kind. It is an elementary rule in t!ese matters to !a$e a collection o" t!e s ecial 4t!eses5 o" t!e $arious sc!ools among your ro ositions. T!e solution recommended as a ro riate !ere# too# is to oint out t!at t!e arado( does not come about because o" t!e argument) w!ereas t!is is w!at !is o onent always really wants. 6oreo$er# argue "rom men5s wis!es and t!eir ro"essed o inions. %or eo le do not wis! t!e same t!ings as t!ey say t!ey wis!) t!ey say w!at will look best# w!ereas t!ey wis! w!at a ears to be to t!eir interest) e.g. t!ey say t!at a man oug!t to die nobly rat!er t!an to li$e in leasure# and to li$e in !onest o$erty rat!er t!an in dis!onourable ric!es& but t!ey wis! t!e o osite. Accordingly# a man w!o s eaks according to !is wis!es must be led into stating t!e ro"essed o inions o" eo le# w!ile !e w!o s eaks according to t!ese must be led into admitting t!ose t!at eo le kee !idden away) "or in eit!er case t!ey are bound to introduce a arado(& "or t!ey will s eak contrary eit!er to men5s ro"essed or to t!eir !idden o inions. T!e widest range o" common- lace argument "or leading men into arado(ical statement is t!at w!ic! de ends on t!e standards o" *ature and o" t!e Law) it is so t!at bot! Callicles is drawn as arguing in t!e ;orgias# and t!at all t!e men o" old su osed t!e result to come about) "or nature ,t!ey said- and law are o osites# and +ustice is a "ine t!ing by a legal standard# but not by t!at o" nature. Accordingly# t!ey said# t!e man w!ose statement agrees wit! t!e standard o" nature you s!ould meet by t!e standard o" t!e law# but t!e man w!o agrees wit! t!e law by leading !im to t!e "acts o" nature) "or in bot! ways arado(ical statements may be committed. In t!eir $iew t!e standard o" nature was t!e trut!# w!ile t!at o" t!e law was t!e o inion !eld by t!e ma+ority. 'o t!at it is clear t!at t!ey# too# used to try eit!er to re"ute t!e answerer or to make !im make arado(ical statements# +ust as t!e men o" to-day do as well. 'ome .uestions are suc! t!at in bot! "orms t!e answer is arado(ical& e.g. 40ug!t one to obey t!e wise or one5s "at!erC5 and 40ug!t one to do w!at is e( edient or w!at is +ustC5 and 4Is it re"erable to su""er in+ustice or to do an in+uryC5 Dou s!ould lead eo le# t!en# into $iews o osite to t!e ma+ority and to t!e !iloso !ers& i" any one s eaks as do t!e e( ert reasoners# lead !im into o osition to t!e ma+ority# w!ile i" !e s eaks as do t!e ma+ority# t!en into o osition to t!e reasoners. %or some say t!at o" necessity t!e !a y man is +ust# w!ereas it is arado(ical to t!e many t!at a king s!ould be !a y. To lead a man into arado(es o" t!is sort is t!e same as to lead !im into t!e o osition o" t!e standards o" nature and law) "or t!e law re resents t!e o inion o" t!e ma+ority# w!ereas !iloso !ers s eak according to t!e standard o" nature and t!e trut!. 12

Parado(es# t!en# you s!ould seek to elicit by means o" t!ese common- lace rules. *ow as "or making any one babble# we !a$e already said w!at we mean by 4to babble5. T!is is t!e ob+ect in $iew in all arguments o" t!e "ollowing kind) I" it is all t!e same to state a term and to state its de"inition# t!e 4double5 and 4double o" !al"5 are t!e same) i" t!en 4double5 be t!e 4double o" !al"5# it will be t!e 4double o" !al" o" !al"5. And i"# instead o" 4double5# 4double o" !al"5 be again ut# t!en t!e same e( ression will be re eated t!ree times# 4double o" !al" o" !al" o" !al"5. Also 4desire is o" t!e leasant# isn5t itC5 desire is conation "or t!e leasant) accordingly# 4desire5 is 4conation "or t!e leasant "or t!e leasant5. All arguments o" t!is kind occur in dealing ,1- wit! any relati$e terms w!ic! not only !a$e relati$e genera# but are also t!emsel$es relati$e# and are rendered in relation to one and t!e same t!ing# as e.g. conation is conation "or somet!ing# and desire is desire o" somet!ing# and double is double o" somet!ing# i.e. double o" !al") also in dealing ,/- wit! any terms w!ic!# t!oug! t!ey be not relati$e terms at all# yet !a$e t!eir substance# $i<. t!e t!ings o" w!ic! t!ey are t!e states or a""ections or w!at not# indicated as well in t!eir de"inition# t!ey being redicated o" t!ese t!ings. T!us e.g. 4odd5 is a 4number containing a middle5) but t!ere is an 4odd number5) t!ere"ore t!ere is a 4numbercontaining-a-middle number5. Also# i" snubness be a conca$ity o" t!e nose# and t!ere be a snub nose# t!ere is t!ere"ore a 4conca$e-nose nose5. Peo le sometimes a ear to roduce t!is result# wit!out really roducing it# because t!ey do not add t!e .uestion w!et!er t!e e( ression 4double5# +ust by itsel"# !as any meaning or no# and i" so# w!et!er it !as t!e same meaning# or a di""erent one& but t!ey draw t!eir conclusion straig!t away. 'till it seems# inasmuc! as t!e word is t!e same# to !a$e t!e same meaning as well. 13 We !a$e said be"ore w!at kind o" t!ing 4solecism5 is.5 It is ossible bot! to commit it# and to seem to do so wit!out doing so# and to do so wit!out seeming to do so. 'u ose# as Protagoras used to say t!at menis ,4wrat!5- and ele( ,4!elmet5- are masculine) according to !im a man w!o calls wrat! a 4destructress5 ,oulomenen- commits a solecism# t!oug! !e does not seem to do so to ot!er eo le# w!ere !e w!o calls it a 4destructor5 ,oulomenon- commits no solecism t!oug! !e seems to do so. It is clear# t!en# t!at any one could roduce t!is e""ect by art as well) and "or t!is reason many arguments seem to lead to solecism w!ic! do not really do so# as !a ens in t!e case o" re"utations. Almost all a arent solecisms de end u on t!e word 4t!is5 ,tode-# and u on occasions w!en t!e in"lection denotes neit!er a masculine nor a "eminine ob+ect but a neuter. %or 4!e5 ,outos- signi"ies a masculine# and 4s!e5 ,aute- "eminine& but 4t!is5 ,touto-# t!oug! meant to signi"y a neuter# o"ten also signi"ies one or ot!er o" t!e "ormer) e.g. 4W!at is t!isC5 4It is Callio e5& 4it is a log5& 4it is Coriscus5. *ow in t!e masculine and "eminine t!e in"lections are all di""erent# w!ereas in t!e neuter some are and some are not. 0"ten# t!en# w!en 4t!is5 ,touto- !as been granted# eo le reason as i" 4!im5 ,touton- !ad been said) and likewise also t!ey substitute one in"lection "or anot!er. T!e "allacy comes about because 4t!is5 ,touto- is a common "orm o" se$eral in"lections) "or 4t!is5 signi"ies sometimes 4!e5 ,outos- and sometimes 4!im5 ,touton-. It s!ould signi"y t!em alternately& w!en combined wit! 4is5 ,esti- it s!ould be 4!e5# w!ile wit! 4being5 it s!ould be 4!im5) e.g. 4Coriscus ,Io iskos- is5# but 4being Coriscus5 ,Io iskon-. It !a ens in t!e same way in t!e case o" "eminine nouns as well# and in t!e case o" t!e so-called 4c!attels5 t!at !a$e "eminine or masculine designations. %or only t!ose names w!ic! end in o and n# !a$e t!e designation ro er to a c!attel# e.g. (ulon ,4log5-# sc!oinion ,4ro e5-& t!ose w!ic! do not end so !a$e t!at o" a masculine

or "eminine ob+ect# t!oug! some o" t!em we a ly to c!attels) e.g. askos ,4wineskin5- is a masculine noun# and kline ,4bed5- a "eminine. %or t!is reason in cases o" t!is kind as well t!ere will be a di""erence o" t!e same sort between a construction wit! 4is5 ,esti- or wit! 4being5 ,to einai-. Also# 'olecism resembles in a certain way t!ose re"utations w!ic! are said to de end on t!e like e( ression o" unlike t!ings. %or# +ust as t!ere we come u on a material solecism# so !ere we come u on a $erbal) "or 4man5 is bot! a 4matter5 "or e( ression and also a 4word5) and so is w!ite5. It is clear# t!en# t!at "or solecisms we must try to construct our argument out o" t!e a"oresaid in"lections. T!ese# t!en# are t!e ty es o" contentious arguments# and t!e subdi$isions o" t!ose ty es# and t!e met!ods "or conducting t!em a"oresaid. But it makes no little di""erence i" t!e materials "or utting t!e .uestion be arranged in a certain manner wit! a $iew to concealment# as in t!e case o" dialectics. %ollowing t!en u on w!at we !a$e said# t!is must be discussed "irst. 1: Wit! a $iew t!en to re"utation# one resource is lengt!-"or it is di""icult to kee se$eral t!ings in $iew at once& and to secure lengt! t!e elementary rules t!at !a$e been stated be"ore5 s!ould be em loyed. 0ne resource# on t!e ot!er !and# is s eed& "or w!en eo le are le"t be!ind t!ey look a!ead less. 6oreo$er# t!ere is anger and contentiousness# "or w!en agitated e$erybody is less able to take care o" !imsel". Elementary rules "or roducing anger are to make a s!ow o" t!e wis! to lay "oul# and to be altoget!er s!ameless. 6oreo$er# t!ere is t!e utting o" one5s .uestions alternately# w!et!er one !as more t!an one argument leading to t!e same conclusion# or w!et!er one !as arguments to s!ow bot! t!at somet!ing is so# and t!at it is not so) "or t!e result is t!at !e !as to be on !is guard at t!e same time eit!er against more t!an one line# or against contrary lines# o" argument. In general# all t!e met!ods described be"ore o" roducing concealment are use"ul also "or ur oses o" contentious argument) "or t!e ob+ect o" concealment is to a$oid detection# and t!e ob+ect o" t!is is to decei$e. To counter t!ose w!o re"use to grant w!ate$er t!ey su ose to !el one5s argument# one s!ould ut t!e .uestion negati$ely# as t!oug! desirous o" t!e o osite answer# or at any rate as t!oug! one ut t!e .uestion wit!out re+udice& "or w!en it is obscure w!at answer one wants to secure# eo le are less re"ractory. Also w!en# in dealing wit! articulars# a man grants t!e indi$idual case# w!en t!e induction is done you s!ould o"ten not ut t!e uni$ersal as a .uestion# but take it "or granted and use it) "or sometimes eo le t!emsel$es su ose t!at t!ey !a$e granted it# and also a ear to t!e audience to !a$e done so# "or t!ey remember t!e induction and assume t!at t!e .uestions could not !a$e been ut "or not!ing. In cases w!ere t!ere is no term to indicate t!e uni$ersal# still you s!ould a$ail yoursel" o" t!e resemblance o" t!e articulars to suit your ur ose& "or resemblance o"ten esca es detection. Also# wit! a $iew to obtaining your remiss# you oug!t to ut it in your .uestion side by side wit! its contrary. E.g. i" it were necessary to secure t!e admission t!at 4A man s!ould obey !is "at!er in e$eryt!ing5# ask 4'!ould a man obey !is arents in e$eryt!ing# or disobey t!em in e$eryt!ingC5& and to secure t!at 4A number multi lied by a large number is a large number5# ask 4'!ould one agree t!at it is a large number or a small oneC5 %or t!en# i" com elled to c!oose# one will be more inclined to t!ink it a large one) "or t!e lacing o" t!eir contraries close beside t!em makes t!ings look big to men# bot! relati$ely and absolutely# and worse and better. A strong a earance o" !a$ing been re"uted is o"ten roduced by t!e most !ig!ly so !istical o" all t!e un"air tricks o" .uestioners# w!en wit!out ro$ing anyt!ing# instead o" utting t!eir "inal

ro osition as a .uestion# t!ey state it as a conclusion# as t!oug! t!ey !ad ro$ed t!at 4T!ere"ore so-and-so is not true5 It is also a so !istical trick# w!en a arado( !as been laid down# "irst to ro ose at t!e start some $iew t!at is generally acce ted# and t!en claim t!at t!e answerer s!all answer w!at !e t!inks about it# and to ut one5s .uestion on matters o" t!at kind in t!e "orm 41o you t!ink t!at...C5 %or t!en# i" t!e .uestion be taken as one o" t!e remisses o" one5s argument# eit!er a re"utation or a arado( is bound to result& i" !e grants t!e $iew# a re"utation& i" !e re"uses to grant it or e$en to admit it as t!e recei$ed o inion# a arado(& i" !e re"uses to grant it# but admits t!at it is t!e recei$ed o inion# somet!ing $ery like a re"utation# results. 6oreo$er# +ust as in r!etorical discourses# so also in t!ose aimed at re"utation# you s!ould e(amine t!e discre ancies o" t!e answerer5s osition eit!er wit! !is own statements# or wit! t!ose o" ersons w!om !e admits to say and do arig!t# moreo$er wit! t!ose o" eo le w!o are generally su osed to bear t!at kind o" c!aracter# or w!o are like t!em# or wit! t!ose o" t!e ma+ority or o" all men. Also +ust as answerers# too# o"ten# w!en t!ey are in rocess o" being con"uted# draw a distinction# i" t!eir con"utation is +ust about to take lace# so .uestioners also s!ould resort to t!is "rom time to time to counter ob+ectors# ointing out# su osing t!at against one sense o" t!e words t!e ob+ection !olds# but not against t!e ot!er# t!at t!ey !a$e taken it in t!e latter sense# as e.g. Cleo !on does in t!e 6androbulus. T!ey s!ould also break o"" t!eir argument and cut down t!eir ot!er lines o" attack# w!ile in answering# i" a man ercei$es t!is being done be"ore!and# !e s!ould ut in !is ob+ection and !a$e !is say "irst. 0ne s!ould also lead attacks sometimes against ositions ot!er t!an t!e one stated# on t!e understood condition t!at one cannot "ind lines o" attack against t!e $iew laid down# as Lyco !ron did w!en ordered to deli$er a eulogy u on t!e lyre. To counter t!ose w!o demand 4Against w!at are you directing your e""ortC5# since one is generally t!oug!t bound to state t!e c!arge made# w!ile# on t!e ot!er !and# some ways o" stating it make t!e de"ence too easy# you s!ould state as your aim only t!e general result t!at always !a ens in re"utations# namely t!e contradiction o" !is t!esis -$i<. t!at your e""ort is to deny w!at !e !as a""irmed# or to a""irm w!at !e denied) don5t say t!at you are trying to s!ow t!at t!e knowledge o" contraries is# or is not# t!e same. 0ne must not ask one5s conclusion in t!e "orm o" a remiss# w!ile some conclusions s!ould not e$en be ut as .uestions at all& one s!ould take and use it as granted. 1? We !a$e now t!ere"ore dealt wit! t!e sources o" .uestions# and t!e met!ods o" .uestioning in contentious dis utations) ne(t we !a$e to s eak o" answering# and o" !ow solutions s!ould be made# and o" w!at re.uires t!em# and o" w!at use is ser$ed by arguments o" t!is kind. T!e use o" t!em# t!en# is# "or !iloso !y# two"old. %or in t!e "irst lace# since "or t!e most art t!ey de end u on t!e e( ression# t!ey ut us in a better condition "or seeing in !ow many senses any term is used# and w!at kind o" resemblances and w!at kind o" di""erences occur between t!ings and between t!eir names. In t!e second lace t!ey are use"ul "or one5s own ersonal researc!es& "or t!e man w!o is easily committed to a "allacy by some one else# and does not ercei$e it# is likely to incur t!is "ate o" !imsel" also on many occasions. T!irdly and lastly# t!ey "urt!er contribute to one5s re utation# $i<. t!e re utation o" being well trained in e$eryt!ing# and not ine( erienced in anyt!ing) "or t!at a arty to arguments s!ould "ind "ault wit! t!em# i" !e cannot de"initely oint out t!eir weakness# creates a sus icion# making it seem as t!oug! it were not t!e trut! o" t!e matter but merely ine( erience t!at ut !im out o" tem er.

Answerers may clearly see !ow to meet arguments o" t!is kind# i" our re$ious account was rig!t o" t!e sources w!ence "allacies came# and also our distinctions ade.uate o" t!e "orms o" dis!onesty in utting .uestions. But it is not t!e same t!ing take an argument in one5s !and and t!en to see and sol$e its "aults# as it is to be able to meet it .uickly w!ile being sub+ected to .uestions) "or w!at we know# we o"ten do not know in a di""erent conte(t. 6oreo$er# +ust as in ot!er t!ings s eed is en!anced by training# so it is wit! arguments too# so t!at su osing we are un ractised# e$en t!oug! a oint be clear to us# we are o"ten too late "or t!e rig!t moment. 'ometimes too it !a ens as wit! diagrams& "or t!ere we can sometimes analyse t!e "igure# but not construct it again) so too in re"utations# t!oug! we know t!e t!ing on w!ic! t!e conne(ion o" t!e argument de ends# we still are at a loss to s lit t!e argument a art. 1@ %irst t!en# +ust as we say t!at we oug!t sometimes to c!oose to ro$e somet!ing in t!e general estimation rat!er t!an in trut!# so also we !a$e sometimes to sol$e arguments rat!er in t!e general estimation t!an according to t!e trut!. %or it is a general rule in "ig!ting contentious ersons# to treat t!em not as re"uting# but as merely a earing to re"ute) "or we say t!at t!ey don5t really ro$e t!eir case# so t!at our ob+ect in correcting t!em must be to dis el t!e a earance o" it. %or i" re"utation be an unambiguous contradiction arri$ed at "rom certain $iews# t!ere could be no need to draw distinctions against am !iboly and ambiguity) t!ey do not e""ect a roo". T!e only moti$e "or drawing "urt!er distinctions is t!at t!e conclusion reac!ed looks like a re"utation. W!at# t!en# we !a$e to beware o"# is not being re"uted# but seeming to be# because o" course t!e asking o" am !ibolies and o" .uestions t!at turn u on ambiguity# and all t!e ot!er tricks o" t!at kind# conceal e$en a genuine re"utation# and make it uncertain w!o is re"uted and w!o is not. %or since one !as t!e rig!t at t!e end# w!en t!e conclusion is drawn# to say t!at t!e only denial made o" 0ne5s statement is ambiguous# no matter !ow recisely !e may !a$e addressed !is argument to t!e $ery same oint as onesel"# it is not clear w!et!er one !as been re"uted) "or it is not clear w!et!er at t!e moment one is s eaking t!e trut!. I"# on t!e ot!er !and# one !ad drawn a distinction# and .uestioned !im on t!e ambiguous term or t!e am !iboly# t!e re"utation would not !a$e been a matter o" uncertainty. Also w!at is incidentally t!e ob+ect o" contentious arguers# t!oug! less so nowadays t!an "ormerly# would !a$e been "ul"illed# namely t!at t!e erson .uestioned s!ould answer eit!er 4Des5 or 4*o5) w!ereas nowadays t!e im ro er "orms in w!ic! .uestioners ut t!eir .uestions com el t!e arty .uestioned to add somet!ing to !is answer in correction o" t!e "aultiness o" t!e ro osition as ut) "or certainly# i" t!e .uestioner distinguis!es !is meaning ade.uately# t!e answerer is bound to re ly eit!er 4Des5 or 4*o5. I" any one is going to su ose t!at an argument w!ic! turns u on ambiguity is a re"utation# it will be im ossible "or an answerer to esca e being re"uted in a sense) "or in t!e case o" $isible ob+ects one is bound o" necessity to deny t!e term one !as asserted# and to assert w!at one !as denied. %or t!e remedy w!ic! some eo le !a$e "or t!is is .uite una$ailing. T!ey say# not t!at Coriscus is bot! musical and unmusical# but t!at t!is Coriscus is musical and t!is Coriscus unmusical. But t!is will not do# "or to say 4t!is Coriscus is unmusical5# or 4musical5# and to say 4t!is Coriscus5 is so# is to use t!e same e( ression) and t!is !e is bot! a""irming and denying at once. 4But er!a s t!ey do not mean t!e same.5 Well# nor did t!e sim le name in t!e "ormer case) so w!ere is t!e di""erenceC I"# !owe$er# !e is to ascribe to t!e one erson t!e sim le title 4Coriscus5# w!ile to t!e ot!er !e is to add t!e re"i( 4one5 or 4t!is5# !e commits an absurdity) "or t!e latter is no more a licable to t!e one t!an to t!e ot!er) "or to w!ic!e$er !e adds it# it makes no di""erence.

All t!e same# since i" a man does not distinguis! t!e senses o" an am !iboly# it is not clear w!et!er !e !as been con"uted or !as not been con"uted# and since in arguments t!e rig!t to distinguis! t!em is granted# it is e$ident t!at to grant t!e .uestion sim ly wit!out drawing any distinction is a mistake# so t!at# e$en i" not t!e man !imsel"# at any rate !is argument looks as t!oug! it !ad been re"uted. It o"ten !a ens# !owe$er# t!at# t!oug! t!ey see t!e am !iboly# eo le !esitate to draw suc! distinctions# because o" t!e dense crowd o" ersons w!o ro ose .uestions o" t!e kind# in order t!at t!ey may not be t!oug!t to be obstructionists at e$ery turn) t!en# t!oug! t!ey would ne$er !a$e su osed t!at t!at was t!e oint on w!ic! t!e argument turned# t!ey o"ten "ind t!emsel$es "aced by a arado(. Accordingly# since t!e rig!t o" drawing t!e distinction is granted# one s!ould not !esitate# as !as been said be"ore. I" eo le ne$er made two .uestions into one .uestion# t!e "allacy t!at turns u on ambiguity and am !iboly would not !a$e e(isted eit!er# but eit!er genuine re"utation or none. %or w!at is t!e di""erence between asking 4Are Callias and T!emistocles musicalC5 and w!at one mig!t !a$e asked i" t!ey# being di""erent# !ad !ad one nameC %or i" t!e term a lied means more t!an one t!ing# !e !as asked more t!an one .uestion. I" t!en it be not rig!t to demand sim ly to be gi$en a single answer to two .uestions# it is e$ident t!at it is not ro er to gi$e a sim le answer to any ambiguous .uestion# not e$en i" t!e redicate be true o" all t!e sub+ects# as some claim t!at one s!ould. %or t!is is e(actly as t!oug! !e !ad asked 4Are Coriscus and Callias at !ome or not at !omeC5# su osing t!em to be bot! in or bot! out) "or in bot! cases t!ere is a number o" ro ositions) "or t!oug! t!e sim le answer be true# t!at does not make t!e .uestion one. %or it is ossible "or it to be true to answer e$en countless di""erent .uestions w!en ut to one# all toget!er wit! eit!er a 4Des5 or a 4*o5) but still one s!ould not answer t!em wit! a single answer) "or t!at is t!e deat! o" discussion. >at!er# t!e case is like as t!oug! di""erent t!ings !as actually !ad t!e same name a lied to t!em. I" t!en# one s!ould not gi$e a single answer to two .uestions# it is e$ident t!at we s!ould not say sim ly 4Des5 or 4*o5 in t!e case o" ambiguous terms eit!er) "or t!e remark is sim ly a remark# not an answer at all# alt!oug! among dis utants suc! remarks are loosely deemed to be answers# because t!ey do not see w!at t!e conse.uence is. As we said# t!en# inasmuc! as certain re"utations are generally taken "or suc!# t!oug! not suc! really# in t!e same way also certain solutions will be generally taken "or solutions# t!oug! not really suc!. *ow t!ese# we say# must sometimes be ad$anced rat!er t!an t!e true solutions in contentious reasonings and in t!e encounter wit! ambiguity. T!e ro er answer in saying w!at one t!inks is to say 4;ranted5& "or in t!at way t!e likeli!ood o" being re"uted on a side issue is minimi<ed. I"# on t!e ot!er !and# one is com elled to say somet!ing arado(ical# one s!ould t!en be most care"ul to add t!at 4it seems5 so) "or in t!at way one a$oids t!e im ression o" being eit!er re"uted or arado(ical. 'ince it is clear w!at is meant by 4begging t!e original .uestion5# and eo le t!ink t!at t!ey must at all costs o$ert!row t!e remisses t!at lie near t!e conclusion# and lead in e(cuse "or re"using to grant !im some o" t!em t!at !e is begging t!e original .uestion# so w!ene$er any one claims "rom us a oint suc! as is bound to "ollow as a conse.uence "rom our t!esis# but is "alse or arado(ical# we must lead t!e same) "or t!e necessary conse.uences are generally !eld to be a art o" t!e t!esis itsel". 6oreo$er# w!ene$er t!e uni$ersal !as been secured not under a de"inite name# but by a com arison o" instances# one s!ould say t!at t!e .uestioner assumes it not in t!e sense in w!ic! it was granted nor in w!ic! !e ro osed it in t!e remiss) "or t!is too is a oint u on w!ic! a re"utation o"ten de ends.

I" one is debarred "rom t!ese de"ences one must ass to t!e argument t!at t!e conclusion !as not been ro erly s!own# a roac!ing it in t!e lig!t o" t!e a"oresaid distinction between t!e di""erent kinds o" "allacy. In t!e case# t!en# o" names t!at are used literally one is bound to answer eit!er sim ly or by drawing a distinction) t!e tacit understandings im lied in our statements# e.g. in answer to .uestions t!at are not ut clearly but elli tically-it is u on t!is t!at t!e conse.uent re"utation de ends. %or e(am le# 4Is w!at belongs to At!enians t!e ro erty o" At!eniansC5 Des. 4And so it is likewise in ot!er cases. But obser$e& man belongs to t!e animal kingdom# doesn5t !eC5 Des. 4T!en man is t!e ro erty o" t!e animal kingdom.5 But t!is is a "allacy) "or we say t!at man 4belongs to5 t!e animal kingdom because !e is an animal# +ust as we say t!at Lysander 4belongs to5 t!e ' artans# because !e is a ' artan. It is e$ident# t!en# t!at w!ere t!e remiss ut "orward is not clear# one must not grant it sim ly. W!ene$er o" two t!ings it is generally t!oug!t t!at i" t!e one is true t!e ot!er is true o" necessity# w!ereas# i" t!e ot!er is true# t!e "irst is not true o" necessity# one s!ould# i" asked w!ic! o" t!em is true# grant t!e smaller one) "or t!e larger t!e number o" remisses# t!e !arder it is to draw a conclusion "rom t!em. I"# again# t!e so !ist tries to secure t!at !as a contrary w!ile B !as not# su ose w!at !e says is true# you s!ould say t!at eac! !as a contrary# only "or t!e one t!ere is no establis!ed name. 'ince# again# in regard to some o" t!e $iews t!ey e( ress# most eo le would say t!at any one w!o did not admit t!em was telling a "alse!ood# w!ile t!ey would not say t!is in regard to some# e.g. to any matters w!ereon o inion is di$ided ,"or most eo le !a$e no distinct $iew w!et!er t!e soul o" animals is destructible or immortal-# accordingly ,1- it is uncertain in w!ic! o" two senses t!e remiss ro osed is usually meant-w!et!er as ma(ims are ,"or eo le call by t!e name o" 4ma(ims5 bot! true o inions and general assertions- or like t!e doctrine 4t!e diagonal o" a s.uare is incommensurate wit! its side5) and moreo$er ,/- w!ene$er o inions are di$ided as to t!e trut!# we t!en !a$e sub+ects o" w!ic! it is $ery easy to c!ange t!e terminology undetected. %or because o" t!e uncertainty in w!ic! o" t!e two senses t!e remiss contains t!e trut!# one will not be t!oug!t to be laying any trick# w!ile because o" t!e di$ision o" o inion# one will not be t!oug!t to be telling a "alse!ood. C!ange t!e terminology t!ere"ore# "or t!e c!ange will make t!e osition irre"utable. 6oreo$er# w!ene$er one "oresees any .uestion coming# one s!ould ut in one5s ob+ection and !a$e one5s say be"ore!and) "or by doing so one is likely to embarrass t!e .uestioner most e""ectually. 1E Inasmuc! as a ro er solution is an e( osure o" "alse reasoning# s!owing on w!at kind o" .uestion t!e "alsity de ends# and w!ereas 4"alse reasoning5 !as a double meaning-"or it is used eit!er i" a "alse conclusion !as been ro$ed# or i" t!ere is only an a arent roo" and no real one-t!ere must be bot! t!e kind o" solution +ust described#5 and also t!e correction o" a merely a arent roo"# so as to s!ow u on w!ic! o" t!e .uestions t!e a earance de ends. T!us it comes about t!at one sol$es arguments t!at are ro erly reasoned by demolis!ing t!em# w!ereas one sol$es merely a arent arguments by drawing distinctions. Again# inasmuc! as o" arguments t!at are ro erly reasoned some !a$e a true and ot!ers a "alse conclusion# t!ose t!at are "alse in res ect o" t!eir conclusion it is ossible to sol$e in two ways& "or it is ossible bot! by demolis!ing one o" t!e remisses asked# and by s!owing t!at t!e conclusion is not t!e real state o" t!e case) t!ose# on t!e ot!er !and# t!at are "alse in res ect o" t!e remisses can be sol$ed only by a demolition o" one o" t!em& "or t!e conclusion is true. 'o t!at t!ose w!o wis! to sol$e an argument s!ould in t!e "irst

lace look and see i" it is ro erly reasoned# or is unreasoned& and ne(t# w!et!er t!e conclusion be true or "alse# in order t!at we may e""ect t!e solution eit!er by drawing some distinction or by demolis!ing somet!ing# and demolis!ing it eit!er in t!is way or in t!at# as was laid down be"ore. T!ere is a $ery great deal o" di""erence between sol$ing an argument w!en being sub+ected to .uestions and w!en not) "or to "oresee tra s is di""icult# w!ereas to see t!em at one5s leisure is easier. 1F 0" t!e re"utations# t!en# t!at de end u on ambiguity and am !iboly some contain some .uestion wit! more t!an one meaning# w!ile ot!ers contain a conclusion bearing a number o" senses) e.g. in t!e roo" t!at 4s eaking o" t!e silent5 is ossible# t!e conclusion !as a double meaning# w!ile in t!e roo" t!at 4!e w!o knows does not understand w!at !e knows5 one o" t!e .uestions contains an am !iboly. Also t!e double-edged saying is true in one conte(t but not in anot!er) it means somet!ing t!at is and somet!ing t!at is not. W!ene$er# t!en# t!e many senses lie in t!e conclusion no re"utation takes lace unless t!e so !ist secures as well t!e contradiction o" t!e conclusion !e means to ro$e& e.g. in t!e roo" t!at 4seeing o" t!e blind5 is ossible) "or wit!out t!e contradiction t!ere was no re"utation. W!ene$er# on t!e ot!er !and# t!e many senses lie in t!e .uestions# t!ere is no necessity to begin by denying t!e double-edged remiss) "or t!is was not t!e goal o" t!e argument but only its su ort. At t!e start# t!en# one s!ould re ly wit! regard to an ambiguity# w!et!er o" a term or o" a !rase# in t!is manner# t!at 4in one sense it is so# and in anot!er not so5# as e.g. t!at 4s eaking o" t!e silent5 is in one sense ossible but in anot!er not ossible) also t!at in one sense 4one s!ould do w!at must needs be done5# but not in anot!er) "or 4w!at must needs be5 bears a number o" senses. I"# !owe$er# t!e ambiguity esca es one# one s!ould correct it at t!e end by making an addition to t!e .uestion) 4Is s eaking o" t!e silent ossibleC5 4*o# but to s eak o" w!ile !e is silent is ossible.5 Also# in cases w!ic! contain t!e ambiguity in t!eir remisses# one s!ould re ly in like manner) 41o eo let!en not understand w!at t!ey knowC ADes# but not t!ose w!o know it in t!e manner described5) "or it is not t!e same t!ing to say t!at 4t!ose w!o know cannot understand w!at t!ey know5# and to say t!at 4t!ose w!o know somet!ing in t!is articular manner cannot do so5. In general# too# e$en t!oug! !e draws !is conclusion in a .uite unambiguous manner# one s!ould contend t!at w!at !e !as negated is not t!e "act w!ic! one !as asserted but only its name& and t!at t!ere"ore t!ere is no re"utation. /G It is e$ident also !ow one s!ould sol$e t!ose re"utations t!at de end u on t!e di$ision and combination o" words) "or i" t!e e( ression means somet!ing di""erent w!en di$ided and w!en combined# as soon as one5s o onent draws !is conclusion one s!ould take t!e e( ression in t!e contrary way. All suc! e( ressions as t!e "ollowing de end u on t!e combination or di$ision o" t!e words) 4Was J being beaten wit! t!at wit! w!ic! you saw !im being beatenC5 and 41id you see !im being beaten wit! t!at wit! w!ic! !e was being beatenC5 T!is "allacy !as also in it an element o" am !iboly in t!e .uestions# but it really de ends u on combination. %or t!e meaning t!at de ends u on t!e di$ision o" t!e words is not really a double meaning ,"or t!e e( ression w!en di$ided is not t!e same-# unless also t!e word t!at is ronounced# according to its breat!ing# as eros and eros is a case o" double meaning. ,In writing# indeed# a word is t!e same w!ene$er it is written o" t!e same letters and in t!e same manner- and e$en t!ere eo le nowadays ut marks at t!e side to s!ow t!e ronunciation- but t!e s oken words are not t!e same.- Accordingly an e( ression t!at

de ends u on di$ision is not an ambiguous one. It is e$ident also t!at not all re"utations de end u on ambiguity as some eo le say t!ey do. T!e answerer# t!en# must di$ide t!e e( ression) "or 4I-saw-a-man-being-beaten wit! my eyes5 is not t!e same as to say 4I saw a man being-beaten-wit!-my-eyes5. Also t!ere is t!e argument o" Eut!ydemus ro$ing 4T!en you know now in 'icily t!at t!ere are triremes in Piraeus5) and again# 4Can a good man w!o is a cobbler be badC5 4*o.5 4But a good man may be a bad cobbler) t!ere"ore a good cobbler will be bad.5 Again# 4T!ings t!e knowledge o" w!ic! is good# are good t!ings to learn# aren5t t!eyC5 4Des.5 4T!e knowledge# !owe$er# o" e$il is good) t!ere"ore e$il is a good t!ing to know.5 4Des. But# you see# e$il is bot! e$il and a t!ing-to-learn# so t!at e$il is an e$il-t!ing-tolearn# alt!oug! t!e knowledge o" e$ils is good.5 Again# 4Is it true to say in t!e resent moment t!at you are bornC5 4Des.5 4T!en you are born in t!e resent moment.5 4*o& t!e e( ression as di$ided !as a di""erent meaning) "or it is true to say-in-t!e- resent-moment t!at Ayou are bornB# but not ADou are born-in-t!e- resent-momentB.5 Again# 4Could you do w!at you can# and as you canC5 4Des.5 4But w!en not !ar ing# you !a$e t!e ower to !ar ) and t!ere"ore you could !ar w!en not !ar ing.5 4*o) !e !as not t!e ower to !ar -w!ile-not-!ar ing& merely# w!en !e is not doing it# !e !as t!e ower to do it.5 'ome eo le sol$e t!is last re"utation in anot!er way as well. %or# t!ey say# i" !e !as granted t!at !e can do anyt!ing in t!e way !e can# still it does not "ollow t!at !e can !ar w!en not !ar ing) "or it !as not been granted t!at !e will do anyt!ing in e$ery way in w!ic! !e can& and it is not t!e same t!ing5 to do a t!ing in t!e way !e can5 and 4to do it in e$ery way in w!ic! !e can5. But e$idently t!ey do not sol$e it ro erly) "or o" arguments t!at de end u on t!e same oint t!e solution is t!e same# w!ereas t!is will not "it all cases o" t!e kind nor yet all ways o" utting t!e .uestions) it is $alid against t!e .uestioner# but not against !is argument. /1 Accentuation gi$es rise to no "allacious arguments# eit!er as written or as s oken# e(ce t er!a s some "ew t!at mig!t be made u & e.g. t!e "ollowing argument. 4Is ou katalueis a !ouseC5 4Des.5 4Is t!en ou katalueis t!e negation o" katalueisC5 4Des.5 4But you said t!at ou katalueis is a !ouse) t!ere"ore t!e !ouse is a negation.5 9ow one s!ould sol$e t!is# is clear) "or t!e word does not mean t!e same w!en s oken wit! an acuter and w!en s oken wit! a gra$er accent. // It is clear also !ow one must meet t!ose "allacies t!at de end on t!e identical e( ressions o" t!ings t!at are not identical# seeing t!at we are in ossession o" t!e kinds o" redications. %or t!e one man# say# !as granted# w!en asked# t!at a term denoting a substance does not belong as an attribute# w!ile t!e ot!er !as s!own t!at some attribute belongs w!ic! is in t!e Category o" >elation or o" Kuantity# but is usually t!oug!t to denote a substance because o" its e( ression& e.g. in t!e "ollowing argument) 4Is it ossible to be doing and to !a$e done t!e same t!ing at t!e same timeC5 4*o.5 4But# you see# it is surely ossible to be seeing and to !a$e seen t!e same t!ing at t!e same time# and in t!e same as ect.5 Again# 4Is any mode o" assi$ity a mode o" acti$ityC5 4*o.5 4T!en A!e is cutB# A!e is burntB# A!e is struck by some sensible ob+ectB are alike in e( ression and all denote some "orm o" assi$ity# w!ile again Ato sayB# Ato runB# Ato seeB are like one like one anot!er in e( ression) but# you see# Ato seeB is surely a "orm o" being struck by a sensible ob+ect& t!ere"ore it is at t!e same time a "orm o" assi$ity and o" acti$ity.5 'u ose# !owe$er# t!at in t!at case any one# a"ter granting t!at it is not ossible to do and to !a$e done t!e same t!ing in t!e same time# were to say t!at it is ossible to see and to !a$e seen it# still !e !as not yet been re"uted# su ose !im to say t!at 4to see5 is not a "orm o" 4doing5 ,acti$ity- but o" 4 assi$ity5) "or t!is .uestion is

re.uired as well# t!oug! !e is su osed by t!e listener to !a$e already granted it# w!en !e granted t!at 4to cut5 is a "orm o" resent# and 4to !a$e cut5 a "orm o" ast# acti$ity# and so on wit! t!e ot!er t!ings t!at !a$e a like e( ression. %or t!e listener adds t!e rest by !imsel"# t!inking t!e meaning to be alike) w!ereas really t!e meaning is not alike# t!oug! it a ears to be so because o" t!e e( ression. T!e same t!ing !a ens !ere as !a ens in cases o" ambiguity) "or in dealing wit! ambiguous e( ressions t!e tyro in argument su oses t!e so !ist to !a$e negated t!e "act w!ic! !e ,t!e tyro- a""irmed# and not merely t!e name) w!ereas t!ere still wants t!e .uestion w!et!er in using t!e ambiguous term !e !ad a single meaning in $iew) "or i" !e grants t!at t!at was so# t!e re"utation will be e""ected. Like t!e abo$e are also t!e "ollowing arguments. It is asked i" a man !as lost w!at !e once !ad and a"terwards !as not) "or a man will no longer !a$e ten dice e$en t!oug! !e !as only lost one die. *o) rat!er it is t!at !e !as lost w!at !e !ad be"ore and !as not now& but t!ere is no necessity "or !im to !a$e lost as muc! or as many t!ings as !e !as not now. 'o t!en# !e asks t!e .uestions as to w!at !e !as# and draws t!e conclusion as to t!e w!ole number t!at !e !as) "or ten is a number. I" t!en !e !ad asked to begin wit!# w!et!er a man no longer !a$ing t!e number o" t!ings !e once !ad !as lost t!e w!ole number# no one would !a$e granted it# but would !a$e said 4Eit!er t!e w!ole number or one o" t!em5. Also t!ere is t!e argument t!at 4a man may gi$e w!at !e !as not got5) "or !e !as not got only one die. *o) rat!er it is t!at !e !as gi$en not w!at !e !ad not got# but in a manner in w!ic! !e !ad not got it# $i<. +ust t!e one. %or t!e word 4only5 does not signi"y a articular substance or .uality or number# but a manner relation# e.g. t!at it is not cou led wit! any ot!er. It is t!ere"ore +ust as i" !e !ad asked 4Could a man gi$e w!at !e !as not gotC5 and# on being gi$en t!e answer 4*o5# were to ask i" a man could gi$e a t!ing .uickly w!en !e !ad not got it .uickly# and# on t!is being granted# were to conclude t!at 4a man could gi$e w!at !e !ad not got5. It is .uite e$ident t!at !e !as not ro$ed !is oint) "or to 4gi$e .uickly5 is not to gi$e a t!ing# but to gi$e in a certain manner& and a man could certainly gi$e a t!ing in a manner in w!ic! !e !as not got it# e.g. !e mig!t !a$e got it wit! leasure and gi$e it wit! ain. Like t!ese are also all arguments o" t!e "ollowing kind) 4Could a man strike a blow wit! a !and w!ic! !e !as not got# or see wit! an eye w!ic! !e !as not gotC5 %or !e !as not got only one eye. 'ome eo le sol$e t!is case# w!ere a man !as more t!an one eye# or more t!an one o" anyt!ing else# by saying also t!at !e !as only one. 0t!ers also sol$e it as t!ey sol$e t!e re"utation o" t!e $iew t!at 4w!at a man !as# !e !as recei$ed5) "or A ga$e only one $ote& and certainly B# t!ey say# !as only one $ote "rom A. 0t!ers# again# roceed by demolis!ing straig!t away t!e ro osition asked# and admitting t!at it is .uite ossible to !a$e w!at one !as not recei$ed& e.g. to !a$e recei$ed sweet wine# but t!en# owing to its going bad in t!e course o" recei t# to !a$e it sour. But# as was said also abo$e#5 all t!ese ersons direct t!eir solutions against t!e man# not against !is argument. %or i" t!is were a genuine solution# t!en# su ose any one to grant t!e o osite# !e could "ind no solution# +ust as !a ens in ot!er cases& e.g. su ose t!e true solution to be 4'o-and-so is artly true and artly not5# t!en# i" t!e answerer grants t!e e( ression wit!out any .uali"ication# t!e so !ist5s conclusion "ollows. I"# on t!e ot!er !and# t!e conclusion does not "ollow# t!en t!at could not be t!e true solution) and w!at we say in regard to t!e "oregoing e(am les is t!at# e$en i" all t!e so !ist5s remisses be granted# still no roo" is e""ected. 6oreo$er# t!e "ollowing too belong to t!is grou o" arguments. 4I" somet!ing be in writing did some one write itC5 4Des.5 4But it is now in writing t!at you are seated-a "alse statement# t!oug! it was true at t!e time w!en it was written) t!ere"ore t!e statement t!at was written is at t!e same time "alse and true.5 But t!is is "allacious# "or t!e "alsity or trut! o" a statement or o inion indicates not a

substance but a .uality) "or t!e same account a lies to t!e case o" an o inion as well. Again# 4Is w!at a learner learns w!at !e learnsC5 4Des.5 4But su ose some one learns AslowB .uick5. T!en !is ,t!e so !ist5s- words denote not w!at t!e learner learns but !ow !e learns it. Also# 41oes a man tread u on w!at !e walks t!roug!C 4Des.5 4But J walks t!roug! a w!ole day.5 *o# rat!er t!e words denote not w!at !e walks t!roug!# but w!en !e walks& +ust as w!en any one uses t!e words 4to drink t!e cu 5 !e denotes not w!at !e drinks# but t!e $essel out o" w!ic! !e drinks. Also# 4Is it eit!er by learning or by disco$ery t!at a man knows w!at !e knowsC5 4Des.5 4But su ose t!at o" a air o" t!ings !e !as disco$ered one and learned t!e ot!er# t!e air is not known to !im by eit!er met!od.5 *o) 4w!at5 !e knows# means5 e$ery single t!ing5 !e knows# indi$idually& but t!is does not mean 4all t!e t!ings5 !e knows# collecti$ely. Again# t!ere is t!e roo" t!at t!ere is a 4t!ird man5 distinct "rom 6an and "rom indi$idual men. But t!at is a "allacy# "or 46an5# and indeed e$ery general redicate# denotes not an indi$idual substance# but a articular .uality# or t!e being related to somet!ing in a articular manner# or somet!ing o" t!at sort. Likewise also in t!e case o" 4Coriscus5 and 4Coriscus t!e musician5 t!ere is t!e roblem# Are t!ey t!e same or di""erentC5 %or t!e one denotes an indi$idual substance and t!e ot!er a .uality# so t!at it cannot be isolated& t!oug! it is not t!e isolation w!ic! creates t!e 4t!ird man5# but t!e admission t!at it is an indi$idual substance. %or 46an5 cannot be an indi$idual substance# as Callias is. *or is t!e case im ro$ed one w!it e$en i" one were to call t!e clement !e !as isolated not an indi$idual substance but a .uality) "or t!ere will still be t!e one beside t!e many# +ust as 46an5 was. It is e$ident t!en t!at one must not grant t!at w!at is a common redicate a lying to a class uni$ersally is an indi$idual substance# but must say t!at denotes eit!er a .uality# or a relation# or a .uantity# or somet!ing o" t!at kind. /2 It is a general rule in dealing wit! arguments t!at de end on language t!at t!e solution always "ollows t!e o osite o" t!e oint on w!ic! t!e argument turns) e.g. i" t!e argument de ends u on combination# t!en t!e solution consists in di$ision& i" u on di$ision# t!en in combination. Again# i" it de ends on an acute accent# t!e solution is a gra$e accent& i" on a gra$e accent# it is an acute. I" it de ends on ambiguity# one can sol$e it by using t!e o osite term& e.g. i" you "ind yoursel" calling somet!ing inanimate# des ite your re$ious denial t!at it was so# s!ow in w!at sense it is ali$e) i"# on t!e ot!er !and# one !as declared it to be inanimate and t!e so !ist !as ro$ed it to be animate# say !ow it is inanimate. Likewise also in a case o" am !iboly. I" t!e argument de ends on likeness o" e( ression# t!e o osite will be t!e solution. 4Could a man gi$e w!at !e !as not gotC 4*o# not w!at !e !as not got& but !e could gi$e it in a way in w!ic! !e !as not got it# e.g. one die by itsel".5 1oes a man know eit!er by learning or by disco$ery eac! t!ing t!at !e knows# singlyC but not t!e t!ings t!at !e knows# collecti$ely.5 Also a man treads# er!a s# on any t!ing !e walks t!roug!# but not on t!e time !e walks t!roug!. Likewise also in t!e case o" t!e ot!er e(am les. /3 In dealing wit! arguments t!at de end on Accident# one and t!e same solution meets all cases. %or since it is indeterminate w!en an attribute s!ould be ascribed to a t!ing# in cases w!ere it belongs to t!e accident o" t!e t!ing# and since in some cases it is generally agreed and eo le admit t!at it belongs# w!ile in ot!ers t!ey deny t!at it need belong# we s!ould t!ere"ore# as soon as t!e conclusion !as been drawn# say in answer to t!em all alike# t!at t!ere is no need "or suc! an attribute to belong. 0ne must# !owe$er# be re ared to adduce an e(am le o" t!e kind o" attribute meant. All arguments suc! as t!e "ollowing de end u on Accident. 41o you know w!at I am going

to ask youC you know t!e man w!o is a roac!ing5# or 4t!e man in t!e mask5C 4Is t!e statue your work o" artC5 or 4Is t!e dog your "at!erC5 4Is t!e roduct o" a small number wit! a small number a small numberC5 %or it is e$ident in all t!ese cases t!at t!ere is no necessity "or t!e attribute w!ic! is true o" t!e t!ing5s accident to be true o" t!e t!ing as well. %or only to t!ings t!at are indistinguis!able and one in essence is it generally agreed t!at all t!e same attributes belong& w!ereas in t!e case o" a good t!ing# to be good is not t!e same as to be going to be t!e sub+ect o" a .uestion& nor in t!e case o" a man a roac!ing# or wearing a mask# is 4to be a roac!ing5 t!e same t!ing as 4to be Coriscus5# so t!at su ose I know Coriscus# but do not know t!e man w!o is a roac!ing# it still isn5t t!e case t!at I bot! know and do not know t!e same man& nor# again# i" t!is is mine and is also a work o" art# is it t!ere"ore my work o" art# but my ro erty or t!ing or somet!ing else. ,T!e solution is a"ter t!e same manner in t!e ot!er cases as well.'ome sol$e t!ese re"utations by demolis!ing t!e original ro osition asked) "or t!ey say t!at it is ossible to know and not to know t!e same t!ing# only not in t!e same res ect) accordingly# w!en t!ey don5t know t!e man w!o is coming towards t!em# but do know Corsicus# t!ey assert t!at t!ey do know and don5t know t!e same ob+ect# but not in t!e same res ect. Det# as we !a$e already remarked# t!e correction o" arguments t!at de end u on t!e same oint oug!t to be t!e same# w!ereas t!is one will not stand i" one ado ts t!e same rinci le in regard not to knowing somet!ing# but to being# or to being is a in a certain state# e.g. su ose t!at J is "at!er# and is also yours) "or i" in some cases t!is is true and it is ossible to know and not to know t!e same t!ing# yet wit! t!at case t!e solution stated !as not!ing to do. Certainly t!ere is not!ing to re$ent t!e same argument "rom !a$ing a number o" "laws& but it is not t!e e( osition o" any and e$ery "ault t!at constitutes a solution) "or it is ossible "or a man to s!ow t!at a "alse conclusion !as been ro$ed# but not to s!ow on w!at it de ends# e.g. in t!e case o" =eno5s argument to ro$e t!at motion is im ossible. 'o t!at e$en i" any one were to try to establis! t!at t!is doctrine is an im ossible one# !e still is mistaken# and e$en i" !e ro$ed !is case ten t!ousand times o$er# still t!is is no solution o" =eno5s argument) "or t!e solution was all along an e( osition o" "alse reasoning# s!owing on w!at its "alsity de ends. I" t!en !e !as not ro$ed !is case# or is trying to establis! e$en a true ro osition# or a "alse one# in a "alse manner# to oint t!is out is a true solution. Possibly# indeed# t!e resent suggestion may $ery well a ly in some cases) but in t!ese cases# at any rate# not e$en t!is would be generally agreed) "or !e knows bot! t!at Coriscus is Coriscus and t!at t!e a roac!ing "igure is a roac!ing. To know and not to know t!e same t!ing is generally t!oug!t to be ossible# w!en e.g. one knows t!at J is w!ite# but does not reali<e t!at !e is musical) "or in t!at way !e does know and not know t!e same t!ing# t!oug! not in t!e same res ect. But as to t!e a roac!ing "igure and Coriscus !e knows bot! t!at it is a roac!ing and t!at !e is Coriscus. A like mistake to t!at o" t!ose w!om we !a$e mentioned is t!at o" t!ose w!o sol$e t!e roo" t!at e$ery number is a small number) "or i"# w!en t!e conclusion is not ro$ed# t!ey ass t!is o$er and say t!at a conclusion !as been ro$ed and is true# on t!e ground t!at e$ery number is bot! great and small# t!ey make a mistake. 'ome eo le also use t!e rinci le o" ambiguity to sol$e t!e a"oresaid reasonings# e.g. t!e roo" t!at 4J is your "at!er5# or 4son5# or 4sla$e5. Det it is e$ident t!at i" t!e a earance a roo" de ends u on a lurality o" meanings# t!e term# or t!e e( ression in .uestion# oug!t to bear a number o" literal senses# w!ereas no one s eaks o" A as being 4B5s c!ild5 in t!e literal sense# i" B is t!e c!ild5s master# but t!e combination de ends u on Accident. 4Is A yoursC5 4Des.5 4And is A a c!ildC5 4Des.5 4T!en t!e c!ild A is yours#5 because !e !a ens to be bot! yours and a c!ild& but !e is not 4your c!ild5.

T!ere is also t!e roo" t!at 4somet!ing Ao" e$ilsB is good5& "or wisdom is a 4knowledge Ao" e$ilsB5. But t!e e( ression t!at t!is is 4o" so and-so5 ,L5so-and-so5s5- !as not a number o" meanings) it means t!at it is 4so-and-so5s ro erty5. We may su ose o" course# on t!e ot!er !and# t!at it !as a number o" meanings-"or we also say t!at man is 4o" t!e animals5# t!oug! not t!eir ro erty& and also t!at any term related to 4e$ils5 in a way e( ressed by a geniti$e case is on t!at account a soand-so 4o" e$ils5# t!oug! it is not one o" t!e e$ils-but in t!at case t!e a arently di""erent meanings seem to de end on w!et!er t!e term is used relati$ely or absolutely. 4Det it is concei$ably ossible to "ind a real ambiguity in t!e !rase A'omet!ing o" e$ils is goodB.5 Per!a s# but not wit! regard to t!e !rase in .uestion. It would occur more nearly# su ose t!at 4A ser$ant is good o" t!e wicked5& t!oug! er!a s it is not .uite "ound e$en t!ere) "or a t!ing may be 4good5 and be 4J5s5 wit!out being at t!e same time 4J5s good5. *or is t!e saying t!at 46an is o" t!e animals5 a !rase wit! a number o" meanings) "or a !rase does not become ossessed o" a number o" meanings merely su ose we e( ress it elli tically) "or we e( ress 4;i$e me t!e Iliad5 by .uoting !al" a line o" it# e.g. 4;i$e me A'ing# goddess# o" t!e wrat!...B5 /: T!ose arguments w!ic! de end u on an e( ression t!at is $alid o" a articular t!ing# or in a articular res ect# or lace# or manner# or relation# and not $alid absolutely# s!ould be sol$ed by considering t!e conclusion in relation to its contradictory# to see i" any o" t!ese t!ings can ossibly !a$e !a ened to it. %or it is im ossible "or contraries and o osites and an a""irmati$e and a negati$e to belong to t!e same t!ing absolutely& t!ere is# !owe$er# not!ing to re$ent eac! "rom belonging in a articular res ect or relation or manner# or to re$ent one o" t!em "rom belonging in a articular res ect and t!e ot!er absolutely. 'o t!at i" t!is one belongs absolutely and t!at one in a articular res ect# t!ere is as yet no re"utation. T!is is a "eature one !as to "ind in t!e conclusion by e(amining it in com arison wit! its contradictory. All arguments o" t!e "ollowing kind !a$e t!is "eature) 4Is it ossible "or w!at is-not to beC A*o.B But# you see# it is somet!ing# des ite its not being.5 Likewise also# Being will not be& "or it will not !e some articular "orm o" being. Is it ossible "or t!e same man at t!e same time to be a kee er and a breaker o" !is oat!C5 4Can t!e same man at t!e same time bot! obey and disobey t!e same manC5 0r isn5t it t!e case t!at being somet!ing in articular and Being are not t!e sameC 0n t!e ot!er !and# *ot-being# e$en i" it be somet!ing# need not also !a$e absolute 4being5 as well. *or i" a man kee s !is oat! in t!is articular instance or in t!is articular res ect# is !e bound also to be a kee er o" oat!s absolutely# but !e w!o swears t!at !e will break !is oat!# and t!en breaks it# kee s t!is articular oat! only& !e is not a kee er o" !is oat!) nor is t!e disobedient man 4obedient5# t!oug! !e obeys one articular command. T!e argument is similar# also# as regards t!e roblem w!et!er t!e same man can at t!e same time say w!at is bot! "alse and true) but it a ears to be a troublesome .uestion because it is not easy to see in w!ic! o" t!e two conne(ions t!e word 4absolutely5 is to be rendered-wit! 4true5 or wit! 4"alse5. T!ere is# !owe$er# not!ing to re$ent it "rom being "alse absolutely# t!oug! true in some articular res ect or relation# i.e. being true in some t!ings# t!oug! not 4true5 absolutely. Likewise also in cases o" some articular relation and lace and time. %or all arguments o" t!e "ollowing kind de end u on t!is.5 Is !ealt!# or wealt!# a good t!ingC5 4Des.5 4But to t!e "ool w!o does not use it arig!t it is not a good t!ing) t!ere"ore it is bot! good and not good.5 4Is !ealt!# or olitical ower# a good t!ingC5 4Des. ABut sometimes it is not articularly good) t!ere"ore t!e same t!ing is bot! good and not good to t!e same man.5 0r rat!er t!ere is not!ing to re$ent a t!ing# t!oug! good absolutely# being not good to a articular man# or being good to a articular man# and yet not good or !ere. 4Is t!at w!ic! t!e rudent man

would not wis!# an e$ilC5 4Des.5 4But to get rid o"# !e would not wis! t!e good) t!ere"ore t!e good is an e$il.5 But t!at is a mistake& "or it is not t!e same t!ing to say 4T!e good is an e$il5 and 4to get rid o" t!e good is an e$il5. Likewise also t!e argument o" t!e t!ie" is mistaken. %or it is not t!e case t!at i" t!e t!ie" is an e$il t!ing# ac.uiring t!ings is also e$il) w!at !e wis!es# t!ere"ore# is not w!at is e$il but w!at is good& "or to ac.uire somet!ing good is good. Also# disease is an e$il t!ing# but not to get rid o" disease. 4Is t!e +ust re"erable to t!e un+ust# and w!at takes lace +ustly to w!at takes lace un+ustlyC 4Des.5 4But to to be ut to deat! un+ustly is re"erable.5 4Is it +ust t!at eac! s!ould !a$e !is ownC5 4Des.5 4But w!ate$er decisions a man comes to on t!e strengt! o" !is ersonal o inion# e$en i" it be a "alse o inion# are $alid in law) t!ere"ore t!e same result is bot! +ust and un+ust.5 Also# s!ould one decide in "a$our o" !im w!o says w!at is un+ustC5 4T!e "ormer.5 4But you see# it is +ust "or t!e in+ured arty to say "ully t!e t!ings !e !as su""ered& and t!ese are "allacies. %or because to su""er a t!ing un+ustly is re"erable# un+ust ways are not t!ere"ore re"erable# t!oug! in t!is articular case t!e un+ust may $ery well be better t!an t!e +ust. Also# to !a$e one5s own is +ust# w!ile to !a$e w!at is anot!er5s is not +ust) all t!e same# t!e decision in .uestion may $ery well be a +ust decision# w!ate$er it be t!at t!e o inion o" t!e man w!o ga$e t!e decision su orts) "or because it is +ust in t!is articular case or in t!is articular manner# it is not also +ust absolutely. Likewise also# t!oug! t!ings are un+ust# t!ere is not!ing to re$ent t!e s eaking o" t!em being +ust) "or because to s eak o" t!ings is +ust# t!ere is no necessity t!at t!e t!ings s!ould be +ust# any more t!an because to s eak o" t!ings be o" use# t!e t!ings need be o" use. Likewise also in t!e case o" w!at is +ust. 'o t!at it is not t!e case t!at because t!e t!ings s oken o" are un+ust# t!e $ictory goes to !im w!o s eaks un+ust t!ings) "or !e s eaks o" t!ings t!at are +ust to s eak o"# t!oug! absolutely# i.e. to su""er# t!ey are un+ust. /? >e"utations t!at de end on t!e de"inition o" a re"utation must# according to t!e lan sketc!ed abo$e# be met by com aring toget!er t!e conclusion wit! its contradictory# and seeing t!at it s!all in$ol$e t!e same attribute in t!e same res ect and relation and manner and time. I" t!is additional .uestion be ut at t!e start# you s!ould not admit t!at it is im ossible "or t!e same t!ing to be bot! double and not double# but grant t!at it is ossible# only not in suc! a way as was agreed to constitute a re"utation o" your case. All t!e "ollowing arguments de end u on a oint o" t!at kind. 41oes a man w!o knows A to be A# know t!e t!ing called AC5 and in t!e same way# 4is one w!o is ignorant t!at A is A ignorant o" t!e t!ing called AC5 4Des.5 4But one w!o knows t!at Coriscus is Coriscus mig!t be ignorant o" t!e "act t!at !e is musical# so t!at !e bot! knows and is ignorant o" t!e same t!ing.5 Is a t!ing "our cubits long greater t!an a t!ing t!ree cubits longC5 4Des.5 4But a t!ing mig!t grow "rom t!ree to "our cubits in lengt!& 4now w!at is 4greater5 is greater t!an a 4less5) accordingly t!e t!ing in .uestion will be bot! greater and less t!an itsel" in t!e same res ect. /@ As to re"utations t!at de end on begging and assuming t!e original oint to be ro$ed# su ose t!e nature o" t!e .uestion to be ob$ious# one s!ould not grant it# e$en t!oug! it be a $iew generally !eld# but s!ould tell !im t!e trut!. 'u ose# !owe$er# t!at it esca es one# t!en# t!anks to t!e badness o" arguments o" t!at kind# one s!ould make one5s error recoil u on t!e .uestioner# and say t!at !e !as broug!t no argument) "or a re"utation must be ro$ed inde endently o" t!e original oint. 'econdly# one s!ould say t!at t!e oint was granted under t!e im ression t!at !e intended not to use it as a remiss# but to reason against it# in t!e o osite way "rom t!at ado ted in re"utations on side issues.

/E Also# t!ose re"utations t!at bring one to t!eir conclusion t!roug! t!e conse.uent you s!ould s!ow u in t!e course o" t!e argument itsel". T!e mode in w!ic! conse.uences "ollow is two"old. %or t!e argument eit!er is t!at as t!e uni$ersal "ollows on its articular-as ,e.g.- 4animal5 "ollows "rom 4man5-so does t!e articular on its uni$ersal) "or t!e claim is made t!at i" A is always "ound wit! B# t!en B also is always "ound wit! A. 0r else it roceeds by way o" t!e o osites o" t!e terms in$ol$ed) "or i" A "ollows B# it is claimed t!at A5s o osite will "ollow B5s o osite. 0n t!is latter claim t!e argument o" 6elissus also de ends) "or !e claims t!at because t!at w!ic! !as come to be !as a beginning# t!at w!ic! !as not come to be !as none# so t!at i" t!e !ea$en !as not come to be# it is also eternal. But t!at is not so& "or t!e se.uence is $ice $ersa. /F In t!e case o" any re"utations w!ose reasoning de ends on some addition# look and see i" u on its subtraction t!e absurdity "ollows none t!e less) and t!en i" so# t!e answerer s!ould oint t!is out# and say t!at !e granted t!e addition not because !e really t!oug!t it# but "or t!e sake o" t!e argument# w!ereas t!e .uestioner !as not used it "or t!e ur ose o" !is argument at all. 2G To meet t!ose re"utations w!ic! make se$eral .uestions into one# one s!ould draw a distinction between t!em straig!t away at t!e start. %or a .uestion must be single to w!ic! t!ere is a single answer# so t!at one must not a""irm or deny se$eral t!ings o" one t!ing# nor one t!ing o" many# but one o" one. But +ust as in t!e case o" ambiguous terms# an attribute belongs to a term sometimes in bot! its senses# and sometimes in neit!er# so t!at a sim le answer does one# as it !a ens# no !arm des ite t!e "act t!at t!e .uestion is not sim le# so it is in t!ese cases o" double .uestions too. W!ene$er# t!en# t!e se$eral attributes belong to t!e one sub+ect# or t!e one to t!e many# t!e man w!o gi$es a sim le answer encounters no obstacle e$en t!oug! !e !as committed t!is mistake) but w!ene$er an attribute belongs to one sub+ect but not to t!e ot!er# or t!ere is a .uestion o" a number o" attributes belonging to a number o" sub+ects and in one sense bot! belong to bot!# w!ile in anot!er sense# again# t!ey do not# t!en t!ere is trouble# so t!at one must beware o" t!is. T!us ,e.g.in t!e "ollowing arguments) 'u osing to be good and B e$il# you will# i" you gi$e a single answer about bot!# be com elled to say t!at it is true to call t!ese good# and t!at it is true to call t!em e$il and likewise to call t!em neit!er good nor e$il ,"or eac! o" t!em !as not eac! c!aracter-# so t!at t!e same t!ing will be bot! good and e$il and neit!er good nor e$il. Also# since e$eryt!ing is t!e same as itsel" and di""erent "rom anyt!ing else# inasmuc! as t!e man w!o answers double .uestions sim ly can be made to say t!at se$eral t!ings are 4t!e same5 not as ot!er t!ings but 4as t!emsel$es5# and also t!at t!ey are di""erent "rom t!emsel$es# it "ollows t!at t!e same t!ings must be bot! t!e same as and di""erent "rom t!emsel$es. 6oreo$er# i" w!at is good becomes e$il w!ile w!at is e$il is good# t!en t!ey must bot! become two. 'o o" two une.ual t!ings eac! being e.ual to itsel"# it will "ollow t!at t!ey are bot! e.ual and une.ual to t!emsel$es. *ow t!ese re"utations "all into t!e ro$ince o" ot!er solutions as well) "or 4bot!5 and 4all5 !a$e more t!an one meaning# so t!at t!e resulting a""irmation and denial o" t!e same t!ing does not occur# e(ce t $erbally) and t!is is not w!at we meant by a re"utation. But it is clear t!at i" t!ere be not ut a single .uestion on a number o" oints# but t!e answerer !as a""irmed or denied one attribute only o" one sub+ect only# t!e absurdity will not come to ass. 21

Wit! regard to t!ose w!o draw one into re eating t!e same t!ing a number o" times# it is clear t!at one must not grant t!at redications o" relati$e terms !a$e any meaning in abstraction by t!emsel$es# e.g. t!at 4double5 is a signi"icant term a art "rom t!e w!ole !rase 4double o" !al"5 merely on t!e ground t!at it "igures in it. %or ten "igures in 4ten minus one5 and in 4not do5# and generally t!e a""irmation in t!e negation& but "or all t!at# su ose any one were to say# 4T!is is not w!ite5# !e does not say t!at it is w!ite. T!e bare word 4double5# one may er!a s say# !as not e$en any meaning at all# any more t!an !as 4t!e5 in 4t!e !al"5) and e$en i" it !as a meaning# yet it !as not t!e same meaning as in t!e combination. *or is 4knowledge5 t!e same t!ing in a s eci"ic branc! o" it ,su ose it# e.g. to be 4medical knowledge5- as it is in general) "or in general it was t!e 4knowledge o" t!e knowable5. In t!e case o" terms t!at are redicated o" t!e terms t!roug! w!ic! t!ey are de"ined# you s!ould say t!e same t!ing# t!at t!e term de"ined is not t!e same in abstraction as it is in t!e w!ole !rase. %or 4conca$e5 !as a general meaning w!ic! is t!e same in t!e case o" a snub nose# and o" a bandy leg# but w!en added to eit!er substanti$e not!ing re$ents it "rom di""erentiating its meaning& in "act it bears one sense as a lied to t!e nose# and anot!er as a lied to t!e leg) "or in t!e "ormer conne(ion it means 4snub5 and in t!e latter 4bandys!a ed5& i.e. it makes no di""erence w!et!er you say 4a snub nose5 or 4a conca$e nose5. 6oreo$er# t!e e( ression must not be granted in t!e nominati$e case) "or it is a "alse!ood. %or snubness is not a conca$e nose but somet!ing ,e.g. an a""ection- belonging to a nose) !ence# t!ere is no absurdity in su osing t!at t!e snub nose is a nose ossessing t!e conca$ity t!at belongs to a nose. 2/ Wit! regard to solecisms# we !a$e re$iously said w!at it is t!at a ears to bring t!em about& t!e met!od o" t!eir solution will be clear in t!e course o" t!e arguments t!emsel$es. 'olecism is t!e result aimed at in all arguments o" t!e "ollowing kind) 4Is a t!ing truly t!at w!ic! you truly call itC5 4Des5. 4But# s eaking o" a stone# you call !im real) t!ere"ore o" a stone it "ollows t!at A!im is realB.5 *o) rat!er# talking o" a stone means not saying w!ic!5 but 4w!om5# and not 4t!at5 but 4!im5. I"# t!en# any one were to ask# 4Is a stone !im w!om you truly call !imC5 !e would be generally t!oug!t not to be s eaking good ;reek# any more t!an i" !e were to ask# 4Is !e w!at you call !erC5 ' eak in t!is way o" a 4stick5 or any neuter word# and t!e di""erence does not break out. %or t!is reason# also# no solecism is incurred# su ose any one asks# 4Is a t!ing w!at you say it to beC5 4Des5. 4But# s eaking o" a stick# you call it real) t!ere"ore# o" a stick it "ollows t!at it is real.5 4'tone5# !owe$er# and 4!e5 !a$e masculine designations. *ow su ose some one were to ask# 4Can A!eB be a s!eB ,a "emale-C5# and t!en again# 4Well# but is not !e CoriscusC5 and t!en were to say# 4T!en !e is a As!eB#5 !e !as not ro$ed t!e solecism# e$en i" t!e name 4Coriscus5 does signi"y a 4s!e5# i"# on t!e ot!er !and# t!e answerer does not grant t!is) t!is oint must be ut as an additional .uestion) w!ile i" neit!er is it t!e "act nor does !e grant it# t!en t!e so !ist !as not ro$ed !is case eit!er in "act or as against t!e erson !e !as been .uestioning. In like manner# t!en# in t!e abo$e instance as well it must be de"initely ut t!at 4!e5 means t!e stone. I"# !owe$er# t!is neit!er is so nor is granted# t!e conclusion must not be stated) t!oug! it "ollows a arently# because t!e case ,t!e accusati$e-# t!at is really unlike# a ears to be like t!e nominati$e. 4Is it true to say t!at t!is ob+ect is w!at you call it by nameC5 4Des5. 4But you call it by t!e name o" a s!ield) t!is ob+ect t!ere"ore is Ao" a s!ieldB.5 *o) not necessarily# because t!e meaning o" 4t!is ob+ect5 is not 4o" a s!ield5 but 4a s!ield5) 4o" a s!ield5 would be t!e meaning o" 4t!is ob+ect5s5. *or again i" 49e is w!at you call !im by name5# w!ile 4t!e name you call !im by is Cleon5s5# is !e t!ere"ore 4Cleon5s5) "or !e is not 4Cleon5s5# "or w!at was said was t!at 49e# not !is# is w!at I call !im by name5. %or t!e .uestion# i" ut in t!e latter way#

would not e$en be ;reek. 41o you know t!isC5 4Des.5 4But t!is is !e) t!ere"ore you know !e5. *o) rat!er 4t!is5 !as not t!e same meaning in 41o you know t!isC5 as in 4T!is is a stone5& in t!e "irst it stands "or an accusati$e# in t!e second "or a nominati$e case. 4W!en you !a$e understanding o" anyt!ing# do you understand itC5 4Des.5 4But you !a$e understanding o" a stone) t!ere"ore you understand o" a stone.5 *o) t!e one !rase is in t!e geniti$e# 4o" a stone5# w!ile t!e ot!er is in t!e accusati$e# 4a stone5) and w!at was granted was t!at 4you understand t!at# not o" t!at# o" w!ic! you !a$e understanding5# so t!at you understand not 4o" a stone5# but 4t!e stone5. T!us t!at arguments o" t!is kind do not ro$e solecism but merely a ear to do so# and bot! w!y t!ey so a ear and !ow you s!ould meet t!em# is clear "rom w!at !as been said. 22 We must also obser$e t!at o" all t!e arguments a"oresaid it is easier wit! some to see w!y and w!ere t!e reasoning leads t!e !earer astray# w!ile wit! ot!ers it is more di""icult# t!oug! o"ten t!ey are t!e same arguments as t!e "ormer. %or we must call an argument t!e same i" it de ends u on t!e same oint& but t!e same argument is a t to be t!oug!t by some to de end on diction# by ot!ers on accident# and by ot!ers on somet!ing else# because eac! o" t!em# w!en worked wit! di""erent terms# is not so clear as it was. Accordingly# +ust as in "allacies t!at de end on ambiguity# w!ic! are generally t!oug!t to be t!e silliest "orm o" "allacy# some are clear e$en to t!e man in t!e street ,"or !umorous !rases nearly all de end on diction& e.g. 4T!e man got t!e cart down "rom t!e stand5& and 4W!ere are you boundC5 4To t!e yard arm5& and 4W!ic! cow will cal$e a"oreC5 4*eit!er# but bot! be!ind&5 and 4Is t!e *ort! wind clearC5 4*o# indeed& "or it !as murdered t!e beggar and t!e merc!ant.B Is !e a ;ood enoug!-IingC5 4*o# indeed& a >ob-son5) and so wit! t!e great ma+ority o" t!e rest as well-# w!ile ot!ers a ear to elude t!e most e( ert ,and it is a sym tom o" t!is t!at t!ey o"ten "ig!t about t!eir terms# e.g. w!et!er t!e meaning o" 4Being5 and 40ne5 is t!e same in all t!eir a lications or di""erent& "or some t!ink t!at 4Being5 and 40ne5 mean t!e same& w!ile ot!ers sol$e t!e argument o" =eno and Parmenides by asserting t!at 40ne5 and 4Being5 are used in a number o" senses-# likewise also as regards "allacies o" Accident and eac! o" t!e ot!er ty es# some o" t!e arguments will be easier to see w!ile ot!ers are more di""icult& also to gras to w!ic! class a "allacy belongs# and w!et!er it is a re"utation or not a re"utation# is not e.ually easy in all cases. An incisi$e argument is one w!ic! roduces t!e greatest er le(ity) "or t!is is t!e one wit! t!e s!ar est "ang. *ow er le(ity is two"old# one w!ic! occurs in reasoned arguments# res ecting w!ic! o" t!e ro ositions asked one is to demolis!# and t!e ot!er in contentious arguments# res ecting t!e manner in w!ic! one is to assent to w!at is ro ounded. T!ere"ore it is in syllogistic arguments t!at t!e more incisi$e ones roduce t!e keenest !eart-searc!ing. *ow a syllogistic argument is most incisi$e i" "rom remisses t!at are as generally acce ted as ossible it demolis!es a conclusion t!at is acce ted as generally as ossible. %or t!e one argument# i" t!e contradictory is c!anged about# makes all t!e resulting syllogisms alike in c!aracter) "or always "rom remisses t!at are generally acce ted it will ro$e a conclusion# negati$e or ositi$e as t!e case may be# t!at is +ust as generally acce ted& and t!ere"ore one is bound to "eel er le(ed. An argument# t!en# o" t!is kind is t!e most incisi$e# $i<. t!e one t!at uts its conclusion on all "ours wit! t!e ro ositions asked& and second comes t!e one t!at argues "rom remisses# all o" w!ic! are e.ually con$incing) "or t!is will roduce an e.ual er le(ity as to w!at kind o" remiss# o" t!ose asked# one s!ould demolis!. 9erein is a di""iculty) "or one must demolis! somet!ing# but w!at one must demolis! is uncertain. 0" contentious arguments# on t!e ot!er !and# t!e most incisi$e is t!e one w!ic!# in t!e "irst lace# is c!aracteri<ed by an initial uncertainty w!et!er it !as been ro erly reasoned or not& and also w!et!er t!e solution de ends on a "alse remiss or on t!e drawing o" a distinction& w!ile#

o" t!e rest# t!e second lace is !eld by t!at w!ose solution clearly de ends u on a distinction or a demolition# and yet it does not re$eal clearly w!ic! it is o" t!e remisses asked# w!ose demolition# or t!e drawing o" a distinction wit!in it# will bring t!e solution about# but e$en lea$es it $ague w!et!er it is on t!e conclusion or on one o" t!e remisses t!at t!e dece tion de ends. *ow sometimes an argument w!ic! !as not been ro erly reasoned is silly# su osing t!e assum tions re.uired to be e(tremely contrary to t!e general $iew or "alse& but sometimes it oug!t not to be !eld in contem t. %or w!ene$er some .uestion is le"t out# o" t!e kind t!at concerns bot! t!e sub+ect and t!e ner$e o" t!e argument# t!e reasoning t!at !as bot! "ailed to secure t!is as well# and also "ailed to reason ro erly# is silly& but w!en w!at is omitted is some e(traneous .uestion# t!en it is by no means to be lig!tly des ised# but t!e argument is .uite res ectable# t!oug! t!e .uestioner !as not ut !is .uestions well. Must as it is ossible to bring a solution sometimes against t!e argument# at ot!ers against t!e .uestioner and !is mode o" .uestioning# and at ot!ers against neit!er o" t!ese# likewise also it is ossible to mars!al one5s .uestions and reasoning bot! against t!e t!esis# and against t!e answerer and against t!e time# w!ene$er t!e solution re.uires a longer time to e(amine t!an t!e eriod a$ailable. 23 As to t!e number# t!en# and kind o" sources w!ence "allacies arise in discussion# and !ow we are to s!ow t!at our o onent is committing a "allacy and make !im utter arado(es& moreo$er# by t!e use o" w!at materials solescism is broug!t about# and !ow to .uestion and w!at is t!e way to arrange t!e .uestions& moreo$er# as to t!e .uestion w!at use is ser$ed by all arguments o" t!is kind# and concerning t!e answerer5s art# bot! as a w!ole in general# and in articular !ow to sol$e arguments and solecisms-on all t!ese t!ings let t!e "oregoing discussion su""ice. It remains to recall our original ro osal and to bring our discussion to a close wit! a "ew words u on it. 0ur rogramme was# t!en# to disco$er some "aculty o" reasoning about any t!eme ut be"ore us "rom t!e most generally acce ted remisses t!at t!ere are. %or t!at is t!e essential task o" t!e art o" discussion ,dialectic- and o" e(amination , eirastic-. Inasmuc!# !owe$er# as it is anne(ed to it# on account o" t!e near resence o" t!e art o" so !istry ,so !istic-# not only to be able to conduct an e(amination dialectically but also wit! a s!ow o" knowledge# we t!ere"ore ro osed "or our treatise not only t!e a"oresaid aim o" being able to e(act an account o" any $iew# but also t!e aim o" ensuring t!at in standing u to an argument we s!all de"end our t!esis in t!e same manner by means o" $iews as generally !eld as ossible. T!e reason o" t!is we !a$e e( lained& "or t!is# too# was w!y 'ocrates used to ask .uestions and not to answer t!em& "or !e used to con"ess t!at !e did not know. We !a$e made clear# in t!e course o" w!at recedes# t!e number bot! o" t!e oints wit! re"erence to w!ic!# and o" t!e materials "rom w!ic!# t!is will be accom lis!ed# and also "rom w!at sources we can become well su lied wit! t!ese) we !a$e s!own# moreo$er# !ow to .uestion or arrange t!e .uestioning as a w!ole# and t!e roblems concerning t!e answers and solutions to be used against t!e reasonings o" t!e .uestioner. We !a$e also cleared u t!e roblems concerning all ot!er matters t!at belong to t!e same in.uiry into arguments. In addition to t!is we !a$e been t!roug! t!e sub+ect o" %allacies# as we !a$e already stated abo$e. T!at our rogramme# t!en# !as been ade.uately com leted is clear. But we must not omit to notice w!at !as !a ened in regard to t!is in.uiry. %or in t!e case o" all disco$eries t!e results o" re$ious labours t!at !a$e been !anded down "rom ot!ers !a$e been ad$anced bit by bit by t!ose w!o !a$e taken t!em on# w!ereas t!e original disco$eries generally make ad$ance t!at is small at "irst t!oug!

muc! more use"ul t!an t!e de$elo ment w!ic! later s rings out o" t!em. %or it may be t!at in e$eryt!ing# as t!e saying is# 4t!e "irst start is t!e main art5) and "or t!is reason also it is t!e most di""icult& "or in ro ortion as it is most otent in its in"luence# so it is smallest in its com ass and t!ere"ore most di""icult to see) w!ereas w!en t!is is once disco$ered# it is easier to add and de$elo t!e remainder in conne(ion wit! it. T!is is in "act w!at !as !a ened in regard to r!etorical s eec!es and to ractically all t!e ot!er arts) "or t!ose w!o disco$ered t!e beginnings o" t!em ad$anced t!em in all only a little way# w!ereas t!e celebrities o" to-day are t!e !eirs ,so to s eako" a long succession o" men w!o !a$e ad$anced t!em bit by bit# and so !a$e de$elo ed t!em to t!eir resent "orm# Tisias coming ne(t a"ter t!e "irst "ounders# t!en T!rasymac!us a"ter Tisias# and T!eodorus ne(t to !im# w!ile se$eral eo le !a$e made t!eir se$eral contributions to it) and t!ere"ore it is not to be wondered at t!at t!e art !as attained considerable dimensions. 0" t!is in.uiry# on t!e ot!er !and# it was not t!e case t!at art o" t!e work !ad been t!oroug!ly done be"ore# w!ile art !ad not. *ot!ing e(isted at all. %or t!e training gi$en by t!e aid ro"essors o" contentious arguments was like t!e treatment o" t!e matter by ;orgias. %or t!ey used to !and out s eec!es to be learned by !eart# some r!etorical# ot!ers in t!e "orm o" .uestion and answer# eac! side su osing t!at t!eir arguments on eit!er side generally "all among t!em. And t!ere"ore t!e teac!ing t!ey ga$e t!eir u ils was ready but roug!. %or t!ey used to su ose t!at t!ey trained eo le by im arting to t!em not t!e art but its roducts# as t!oug! any one ro"essing t!at !e would im art a "orm o" knowledge to ob$iate any ain in t!e "eet# were t!en not to teac! a man t!e art o" s!oe-making or t!e sources w!ence !e can ac.uire anyt!ing o" t!e kind# but were to resent !im wit! se$eral kinds o" s!oes o" all sorts) "or !e !as !el ed !im to meet !is need# but !as not im arted an art to !im. 6oreo$er# on t!e sub+ect o" >!etoric t!ere e(ists muc! t!at !as been said long ago# w!ereas on t!e sub+ect o" reasoning we !ad not!ing else o" an earlier date to s eak o" at all# but were ke t at work "or a long time in e( erimental researc!es. I"# t!en# it seems to you a"ter ins ection t!at# suc! being t!e situation as it e(isted at t!e start# our in$estigation is in a satis"actory condition com ared wit! t!e ot!er in.uiries t!at !a$e been de$elo ed by tradition# t!ere must remain "or all o" you# or "or our students# t!e task o" e(tending us your ardon "or t!e s!ortcomings o" t!e in.uiry# and "or t!e disco$eries t!ereo" your warm t!anks.
.

T9E E*1-