Welcome
   Home | Texts by category | | Quick Search:   
Authors
Works by Aristotle
Pages of On Sophistical Refutations



Previous | Next
                  

On Sophistical Refutations   


to have it sour. But, as was said also above,' all these persons

direct their solutions against the man, not against his argument.

For if this were a genuine solution, then, suppose any one to grant

the opposite, he could find no solution, just as happens in other

cases; e.g. suppose the true solution to be 'So-and-so is partly

true and partly not', then, if the answerer grants the expression

without any qualification, the sophist's conclusion follows. If, on

the other hand, the conclusion does not follow, then that could not be

the true solution: and what we say in regard to the foregoing examples

is that, even if all the sophist's premisses be granted, still no

proof is effected.

Moreover, the following too belong to this group of arguments. 'If

something be in writing did some one write it?' 'Yes.' 'But it is

now in writing that you are seated-a false statement, though it was

true at the time when it was written: therefore the statement that was

written is at the same time false and true.' But this is fallacious,

for the falsity or truth of a statement or opinion indicates not a

substance but a quality: for the same account applies to the case of

an opinion as well. Again, 'Is what a learner learns what he

learns?' 'Yes.' 'But suppose some one learns "slow" quick'. Then his

(the sophist's) words denote not what the learner learns but how he

learns it. Also, 'Does a man tread upon what he walks through?

'Yes.' 'But X walks through a whole day.' No, rather the words

denote not what he walks through, but when he walks; just as when

any one uses the words 'to drink the cup' he denotes not what he

drinks, but the vessel out of which he drinks. Also, 'Is it either

by learning or by discovery that a man knows what he knows?' 'Yes.'

'But suppose that of a pair of things he has discovered one and

learned the other, the pair is not known to him by either method.' No:

'what' he knows, means' every single thing' he knows, individually;

but this does not mean 'all the things' he knows, collectively. Again,

there is the proof that there is a 'third man' distinct from Man and

Previous | Next
Site Search