Aristotle's Topics (Philosophia antiqua 74)

232 Pages·1997·8.1 MB·English

by  Paul Slomkowski

Aristotle's TopJcs
r r
BR I
Thil work de:lls with Aristotle"s Topiu,
~ te>((book on how (0 argue 5u,calfuUy
in. debate organised in. cemin WoIy.
The origins of the th..,., bnnche:s of logic
can bt found hen:: logic of propotitionl.
of predicara and of relations.
Having dealt with Ihe JlrucWre of tbe
dialectical debaltl and the theory of the
p","",icables. the cent",l notion of the
topen iJ analysed. Topoi are principlesof
arguments deligned.to help. dilputant
tefu.te his opponent and function u
hypotheses in hypotheticalsyUogisms.
Ihe main form nf. rgummt in the Topia..
Traces of the crymlliution of their
theory can be found in the Tup"" and
An"/yliu
The author analyses a Jt1eetion of
lopai including those: according to
which c:negoncal and ~latioml syl
logisms arc COlUtructed..
P:aul Slom\mwski, D. Phil (1994) in
PbJosophy, Univers;lyof Oxford.
where he hu .ub<..qucntly laught and
undertaken researeh. He is currently
~Itached 10 the University of G("t1."""
al. Dcutsche Fonchunglgemeinschaft
research s.cholar.
PHILOSOPHIA ANTIQUA
A SERIES OF STUDIES
ON ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
FOUNDED BY].H. WASZINK AND W.]. VERDENIUS
EDITED BY
J. MANSFELD, D.T. RUNIA
J.G.M. VAN WIND EN
VOLUME LXXIV
PAUL SLOMKOWSKI
ARISTOTLE'S TOPICS
ARISTOTLE'S TOPICS
BY
PAUL SLOMKOWSKI
BRILL
LEIDEN . NEW YORK· KOLN
1997
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the
Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library
Resources.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Slomkowski, Paul.
Aristotle's Topics / by Paul Slomkowski.
p. cm. - (philosophia antiqua, ISSN 0079-1687 ; v. 74)
Revision of the author's thesis (doctoral}-Oxford, 1994.
Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
ISBN 9004107576 (cloth : alk. paper)
I. Aristotle. Topics. 2. Logic, Ancient. I. Title.
IT. Series.
B442.S56 1997
16Q--dc21 96-49113
CIP
Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-EinheitsaufnahIIle
SIOIIlkowski, Paul:
Aristotle's topics / by Paul Slomkowski. - Leiden ; New York
; KOln: Brill, 1997
(Philosophia antiqua ; Vo!. 74)
---'Zug!.: Oxford, Univ., Diss., 1994
ISBN 90-04---10757-6
NE:GT
ISSN 0079-1687
ISBN 90 04 10757 6
© Copyright 1997 by Koninldijke Brill, Leiden, 1he Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this publication TT/.f9 be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval ~stem, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission .from the publisher.
Authonzation to photocopy items for internal or personal
use is granted by EJ. Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directlY to The Copyright
Clearance Cenler, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 91 0
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS
CON1ENTS
Preface IX
INTRODUCTION
I. .D IALECTICAL DEBATES 9
A. Training in disputation 11
B. Form of dialectical disputations 14
1. The part of the questioner 15
1.1. Problema 15
1.1.1. Form 15
1.1.2. Content 17
1.1.3. Construction and destruction 18
1.2. Protasis 19
1.2.1. Form 19
1.2.2. Content 19
1.2.3. Universal and particular protaseis 23
1.2.4. Syllogistic protasis and syllogism 24
1.2.5. Necessary protaseis 27
1.2.6. Auxiliary protaseis 32
2. The part of the answerer 36
2.1. Solutions (A 15 OEte;) 38
2.2. Objections (EVoTCXOEte;) 39
IT. WHAT IS A TOPOS ? 43
A. Definition of the topos 43
B. Topos as a principle and a protasis 45
1. The passage in Top. 0 14, 163b22-33 46
2. The passage in Rhet. A 2, 1358alO-20 & 29-33 47
3. The passage in Rhet. B 26, 1402a32-34 49
4. The synonymous use of "element" and "topos" 49
C. Other interpretations of topoi and how they square
with the interpretation of topoi as protaseis and
principles 50
1. Topoi as rules of inference 50
2. Topoi as laws 54
3. Topoi as investigation-instructions 54
3.1. Organa 54
3.2. Structure of the organa (and topoi) 57
3.3. Conclusion 58
VI CONTENTS
e
D. Objection and induction in book and in the central
books 58
E. The evidence of Theophrastus 61
1. Tradition of the interpretation of the topos as a
protasis 61
2. Theophrastus' distinction between parangeIma and
topos and his definition of topos 62
2.1. Dinstinction between parangelma and topos 62
2.2. Theophrastus' definition of topos 64
ill. PREDICABLES AND THE SPECIAL STATUS OF
SUMBEBEKOS 69
A. Definition of the predicables 69
1. The passages in Top. A 5 and 8 69
2. The clash between the definition of the predicables
and the explanation of their uSe ill Top. H 5, Z 1 and
A6 ....~ 71
B. Brunschwig's interpretation 73
1. Critique of Brunschwig' s interpretation 74
1.1. Genus 74
1.2. Proprium 76
C. Sainati's interpretation 78
D. My interpretation 79
1. The passage in Top. H 5, 155a3-36 79
2. The form of problemataltheses in Top. il-Z 85
2.1. The form of problemata in il 85
2.2. The form of problemata in E 87
2.3. The form of problemata in Z 87
2.4. The form of problemata in B 88
2.4.1. To belong (uxapXEtv) 88
2.4.2. Sumbebekos in B 89
2.4.3. The meaning of sumbebekos 92
2.4.4. Accident 93
IV. HYPOTHETICAL SYLLOGISMS-THE MAIN
FORM OF ARGUMENTS IN THE TOPICS:
95
A. Hypothetical syllogisms in the Prior Analytics A 23,
29, and 44 95
B. Theophrastus' list of hypothetical syllogisms 96
C. The topoi for the construction of the corresponding
hypothetical syllogisms found in the Topics 97
CONTENTS VII
1. Hypothetical syllogisms proceeding by way of a
continuous proposition together with the additional
assumption' 98
2. Hypothetical syllogisms proceeding by way of a
diairetic proposition 103
3. Hypothetical syllogisms procceding by way of a
negated conjunction 104
4. Hypothetical syllogisms on the basis of analogy 105
5. Qualitative hypothetical syllogisms 106
6. Other varieties of hypothetical syllogisms 106
D. Confirmation by Galen's Institutio Logica 107
E. Origins of Galen's and Alexander's terminology 108
F. Alexander's' explanation of the working of the meta
leptic and diairetic hypothetical syllogisms «Hm) and
(Hd» 108
G. Further arguments for topical arguments working as
hypothetical syllogisms 110
H. Reductionism . 111
I. How does a hypothetical syllogism work? 113
1. Locus classicus on the hypothetical syllogism: APr.
A 44, 50a16-28 113
2. The hypothesis has to be endoxical 116
3. Concluding on the basis of ahypothesis 117
4. Argument per impossibile 118
J. Hypothetical syllogisms in the Topics 120
1. The mode of expression: aorist-future perfect 121
1.1. The case of the Law of Subaltemation 121
2. Hypothesis 125
2.1. Is it a protasis ? 125
2.2. What kind ofprotaseis are the hypotheses? 126
3. Consequence in the metaleptic hypothetical syllo
gism (Hm) 129
3.1. In the constructive case of (Hm) 129
3.2. In the destructive case of (Hm) 130
4. Consequence in the diairetic hypothetical syllogism
(Hd) 130
K. Hypothetical syllogisms in APr. A 46 131
v. SELECTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CONCRETE
TOPOI 133
A. Introductory chapter to B: B 1 134
1. Universal versus particular problemata: 108b34- 134
109alO
2. "To belong" versus "to be": 109alO-26 135
vnr
CONTENTS
3. Definition of two errors: 109a27-34 138
3.1. The first error: false statement 138
3.2. The second error: violation of the established
terminology 139
B. The most opportune topoi 140
1. Topoi from the contradictories, contraries and rela
tives 141
1.1. Topos from the contradictories 141
1.2. Topos from the contraries 142
1.3. Topos from the relatives 145
2. Topoi from the greater, lesser and the like degree 146
2.1. The first topos from the greater and lesser degree 146
2.2. The three remaining topoi from the greater and
lesser degree 147
2.3. The three topoi from the like degree 150
C. Selection of topoi from book B 150
1. The first topos in B: 2, 109a34-b12 150
2. The seco~d topos in B: 2, 109b13-29 153
3. The-f6rirllitcipos in B: 2, 110alO-13 154
4. The thIrd tQPOS in B: 2, 109b30-11 Oa9 155
D. Topoi of";whatismore worthy of choice"
and of "whaiis the same" 156
1. Topoi oC'what is more worthy of choice" 156
2. Topol:of"what is the same" 157
E. Origins of categorical syllogisms in the Topics 160
1. The topos in B 4, 111aI4-32 160
2. The topos in B 2, IlOa14-22 164
2.1. The topical argument inteIpreted as a hypo
thetical syllogism 165
2.2. The topical argument interpreted as a categorical
syllogism 166
3. Categorical syllogisms in dialectical debates 166
Summary 169
Bibliography 175
Classified Bibliography 195
Greek-English Glossary 199
Index of Passages 203
General Index 215
PREFACE
This book is a revised version of my D. Phil. thesis undertaken in Oxford and
conferred as such in May 1994. Firstly, I would like to thank Prof. Wolfgang
Wieland through whom my interest in the Topics was fITst aroused in one of
his colloquiums at the University of Heidelberg and who was my first teacher
in the study of Aristotle and Plato. The comments made by my two D.Phil.
examiners, Mr Christopher Kirwan and Prof. Mario Mignucci were of great
help. In addition, the suggestions of the publisher's anonymous reader helped
make the thesis more readable. I am grateful to the British Academy· for
enabling me to study for a D. Phil. at Oxford; to the Studienstiftung des
deutschen Volkes which supported me throughout studentship; and to the
editors of Philosophia antiqua for accepting my thesis for publication.
I came to Oxford fITst as a Visiting Student in 1990 and I feel that my stay
here was of great advantage to my studies and in particular to this book, and
there are many teachers to whom I am indebted. I should like to thank Dr.
Katherine Morris and Dr. Stephen Blamey, from whom I learned much about
formal logic, and Dr. David Charles, with whom I studied Aristotle's
syllogistic. Then, as a D.Phil. Student, I had the chance to learn a great deal
about Hellenistic philosophy, esp. in Prof. 10nathan Bames' classes on
Sextus Empiricus and Prof. Michael Frede's classes on Stoic Logic. A paper
based on Chapter Two was read in a doctoral seminar held by Prof. Bemard
A. O. Williams who made useful comments. I am also grateful for the
comments of the participants of my lecture series held in Trinity Term 1996
at the University of Oxford which coincided with the revision of the book.
I am of course especially indebted to the supervisors I had whilst writing
my thesis. I would like to thank the late Mr. Michael Woods who supervised
my work for one term in my second year. Sadly, he died prematurely; he was
a very gentle man, and I am personally very indebted to him. I also have to
thank Prof. Michael Frede who supervised my work in the two remaining
terms of the second year; through his initially heavy critique of my interpreta
tion of hypothetical syllogisms I had to find more and more arguments in
favour of it which was certainly beneficial to my thesis. I also thank my wife
Claire for all sorts of editorial help in turning my thesis into a book.
Most and above all, I would like to thank Prof. 10nathan Barnes, who
supervised my work in my fITSt and third year. I have learned a great deal from
him about how to treat philosophical texts. As will become clear from the
references in my thesis I also learned very much from his articles, especially
those on hypothetical syllogisms; they were of great help to me in developing
my own thesis. Having tutorials with him was always very helpful and
stimulating. I suspect that I am more indebted to him than he is even aware.
PAUL SLOMKOWSKI
Brasenose College, Oxford
July 1996