Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Theoretical Rationale

The Theoretical Rationale This paper discusses two issues that have challenged interpreters of Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations (SE): (1) the criteria behind Aristotle’s classification of linguistic fallacies; (2) the interpretation of the opening passage of SE 4. Although Aristotle never clarifies the principles underlying his classification, I contend that his list of six linguistic fallacies in SE is not arbitrary, but relies on a precise rationale which lies in his conception of λέξις as expressed mainly in Poetics 20. The disclosure of this rationale allows in turn for the reconstruction of the “proof through συλλογισμός sketched in SE 4, which is supposed to prove that Aristotle’s list of linguistic fallacies is exhaustive: the proof is not a συλλογισμός in the sense of deductive argument, but a diairetic συλλογισμός a division. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png History of Philosophy and Logical Analysis Brill

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/the-theoretical-rationale-UJ0WvO07SC
Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
2666-4283
eISSN
2666-4275
DOI
10.30965/26664275-01501004
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This paper discusses two issues that have challenged interpreters of Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations (SE): (1) the criteria behind Aristotle’s classification of linguistic fallacies; (2) the interpretation of the opening passage of SE 4. Although Aristotle never clarifies the principles underlying his classification, I contend that his list of six linguistic fallacies in SE is not arbitrary, but relies on a precise rationale which lies in his conception of λέξις as expressed mainly in Poetics 20. The disclosure of this rationale allows in turn for the reconstruction of the “proof through συλλογισμός sketched in SE 4, which is supposed to prove that Aristotle’s list of linguistic fallacies is exhaustive: the proof is not a συλλογισμός in the sense of deductive argument, but a diairetic συλλογισμός a division.

Journal

History of Philosophy and Logical AnalysisBrill

Published: Apr 5, 2012

There are no references for this article.