The Development of Dialectic from Plato to Aristotle

382 Pages·2012·2.09 MB·English

by  Dr Jakob Leth Fink

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DIALECTIC
FROM PLATO TO ARISTOTLE
The period from Plato’s birth to Aristotle’s death (427 322 bc) is
one of the most influential and formative in the history of western
philosophy. The developments of logic, metaphysics, epistemology,
ethicsandscienceinthisperiodhavebeeninvestigated,controversies
have arisen and many new theories have been produced. But this is
thefirstbooktogivedetailedscholarlyattentiontothedevelopment
ofdialecticduringthisdecisiveperiod.Itincludeschaptersontopics
suchas: dialecticas interpersonal debatebetweenaquestionerand a
respondent;dialecticandthedialogueform;dialecticalmethodology;
the dialectical context of certain forms of argument; the role of the
respondent in guaranteeing good argument; dialectic and presenta
tionofknowledge;theinterrelationsbetweenwrittendialoguesand
spokendialectic;anddefinition,inductionandrefutationfromPlato
toAristotle.Thebookcontributestothehistoryofphilosophyand
alsotothecontemporarydebateaboutwhatphilosophyis.
jakob leth fink isapostdoctoralresearcherattheCentreforthe
Aristotelian Tradition in the SAXO Institute of the University of
Copenhagen.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF
DIALECTIC FROM PLATO
TO ARISTOTLE
edited by
JAKOB L. FINK
cambridge university press
Cambridge,NewYork,Melbourne,Madrid,CapeTown,
Singapore,SãoPaulo,Delhi,MexicoCity
CambridgeUniversityPress
TheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridgecb28ru,UK
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyCambridgeUniversityPress,NewYork
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781107012226
©CambridgeUniversityPress2012
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2012
PrintedandBoundinGreatBritainbytheMPGBooksGroup
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationdata
ThedevelopmentofdialecticfromPlatotoAristotle/JakobL.Fink.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
isbn978-1-107-01222-6
1. Dialectic. 2. Philosophy,Ancient. 3. Plato. 4. Aristotle. I. Fink,
JakobL.,1977–
B187.D5D48 2012
160.938–dc23
2012020240
isbn978-1-107-01222-6Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceor
accuracyofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredto
inthispublication,anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuch
websitesis,orwillremain,accurateorappropriate.
Contents
Listofcontributors page vii
Introduction
jakob l. fink 1
part i. dialectic as interpersonal activity
1. Self-refutationanddialecticinPlatoandAristotle
luca castagnoli 27
2. TheroleoftherespondentinPlatoandAristotle
marja liisa kakkuri knuuttila 62
3. DivisionasamethodinPlato
hallvard fossheim 91
part ii. form and content in the philosophical
dialogue
4. DialecticanddialogueintheLysis
morten s. thaning 115
5. TheLachesand‘jointsearchdialectic’
holger thesleff 138
6. ThephilosophicalimportanceofthedialogueformforPlato
charles h. kahn 158
7. HowdidAristotlereadaPlatonicdialogue?
jakob l. fink 174
v
vi Contents
part iii. dialectical methodology
8. Whatisbehindthetiestiquestion?
vasilis politis 199
9. SocraticinductioninPlatoandAristotle
hayden w. ausland 224
10.Aristotle’sdefinitionofelenchusinthelightofPlato’sSophist
louis andre´ dorion 251
11. TheAristotelianelenchus
robert bolton 270
12. Aristotle’sgradualturnfromdialectic
wolfgang kullmann 296
Bibliography 316
Indexrerum 332
Indexlocorum 338
Indexnominum 352
Contributors
hayden w. ausland is Professor of Classics, Department of Modern
andClassicalLanguagesandLiteratures,UniversityofMontana.
robert bolton is Professor of Philosophy at the Department of
Philosophy,RutgersUniversity.
luca castagnoli is a Lecturer in Ancient Philosophy at the
DepartmentofClassicsandAncientHistory,DurhamUniversity.
louis-andre´ dorion is Professor of Philosophy, Département de
Philosophie,UniversitédeMontréal.
jakob l. fink is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the SAXO-Institute,
SectionforGreekandLatin,UniversityofCopenhagen.
hallvard fossheim isDirectorattheNationalCommiteeforResearch
EthicsonHumanRemains.
charles h. kahn is Professor of Philosophy, Department of
Philosophy,UniversityofPennsylvania.
marja-liisa kakkuri-knuuttila is Professor in Philosophy of
Management,AaltoUniversitySchoolofEconomics.
wolfgang kullmann is Professor Emeritus, Seminar für klassische
Philologie,Albert-Ludwigs-UniversitätFreiburg.
vasilis politis is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Department of
Philosophy,TrinityCollege,Dublin.
morten s. thaning is Assistant Professor at the Department of
Management,PoliticsandPhilosophy,CopenhagenBusinessSchool.
holger thesleff is Professor Emeritus of Greek Philology, Helsinki
University.
vii

Introduction*
Jakob L. Fink
Concerningdialectic,PlatoandAristotlemightbethoughttostandoneach
side of a very wide gap. To Plato, dialectic is the best means available to
philosophy for reaching truth, whereas Aristotle seems to grant dialectic
littlemorethanthefunctionoftestingpropositionsandthusdeniesadirect
accesstophilosophicalinsightthroughdialectic.However,evenifthiswere
anadequatedescriptionofPlatonicandAristoteliandialectic(andithardly
is), one question would remain: what happened in between, or in other
words,howdidtheconceptofdialecticdevelopfromPlatotoAristotle?The
presentvolumeaimsatgivingsomeanswerstothisquestion.
Thelastfourdecadesofscholarshipinancientphilosophyhaveproduced
numerousinvestigationsofdialecticconcernedwithPlatoorAristotlesepa-
rately,but therehas been virtually nothingonthe developmentofdialectic
fromPlatotoAristotle.ThisisnotonlytrueintheEnglish-speakingworld,
butholdsforthelastfortyyearsofFrenchandGermanscholarshipaswell.
The remarkable essays in G.E.L. Owen’s Aristotle on Dialectic – the Topics
(1968), W.A. de Pater’s Les Topiques d’Aristote et la dialectique platonicienne
(1965), and the investigations of J. Stenzel, Studien zur Entwicklung der
platonischen Dialektik von Sokrates zu Aristoteles (1931), are the most recent
workswhichmaybesaidtobeconcernedwiththedevelopmentofdialectic
fromPlatotoAristotle.1Buteventhesestudiesdonotcoveralltheaspectsof
theissue(nordotheyclaimtodoso);theyoperate,rather,withinasomewhat
narrowconceptionofdialecticthatisclearlyreflectedinthetopicsdealtwith.
Thefocusisprimarilyonmethodology(dialecticanddefinition)andontol-
ogy(dialecticasconcernedwithforms,ideasorprinciples).Quitegenerally,
one might say that these previous investigations place their emphasis on
* IwishtothankLucaCastagnoli,StenEbbesenandthereadersofthePressfortheircommentson
draftsoftheintroduction.
1 Hambruch1904,Kapp1942,Sichirollo1966,andtherelevantarticlesinBerti2008shouldalsobe
mentioned.Narcy2000andDixsaut2004arebothfirmlyrootedwithinthehorizonofOwen,De
PaterandStenzel.
1
2 jakob l. fink
dialecticasatheoreticalissueandtonedownthefactthatancientdialecticis
alsointendedforuseinanactualdebatewitharealinterlocutor.
Thereareprobablytwomainreasonsforthis.First,thesestudiesallflow
fromtheveinofdevelopmentalism,whichfocusesontheoryordoctrineasa
naturalstartingpoint.Second,thisneglectofthepracticalaspectofdialectic
might stem from a predominantly modern concept of epistemology as
concerned ‘monologically’ with the relation between knower and object
(and less with the epistemology of two opposed claims to knowledge and
theirproponents,confrontedinargument).Bethisasitmay,thefocuson
methodandontologyhasalsoleftitsmarkonsomeofthemostinfluential
studiesofPlatonicandAristoteliandialecticofthelastcentury.InhisPlato’s
EarlierDialectic,Robinsoniswellawareoftheproblemsposedbyreading
Plato’sdialoguesasevidenceforatheoryofdialectic;but,nevertheless,thisis
what he does in the main part of this seminal work.2 Likewise, Vlastos in
‘The Socratic elenchus’ (1983) treats the logic of the elenchus and its
methodological status largely in abstraction from the dialectical setting of
theelenchus.AmongAristotelianscholars,Owen’s‘Τιθέναιτὰφαινόμενα’
(1961) started the still-unsettled debate about the epistemic status of the
premises in dialectical argument (the so-called ἔνδοξα), which in time
turned into a problem about the role of dialectic in establishing the
foundationsofknowledgeorscience.
Thecontributorstothepresentvolumedonotabandonthisinterestin
dialectical method or ontology. In the present context, however, dialectic
meansprimarilyargumentationdirectedataninterlocutor,orinthewords
of Aristotle: dialectic is argumentation πρὸς ἕτερον (Top. 8.1.155b7). The
practiceofdialecticalargumentationanditsextensionintotheliteraryform
ofthedialoguemakesupthecoreofthepresentvolume.Themainpartof
thisintroductionisdevotedtoanoutlineofdialecticconceivedprimarilyas
question-and-answerargument.
dialectic
The contributions are not concerned with questions about origin. Whether
there wasdialectic before Socrates(astheAncients themselvesseem to have
believed), what it was like and how it took shape and evolved must be
addressed at some other occasion.3 In the context of the present volume,
2 Robinson1953:62.
3 FortheEleaticZenoasinventor(ordiscoverer)ofdialectic,seeAristotle’sSophist(Fr.65R3 DL8.57).
FortherivalcandidateProtagoras,seeDL9.53.Wilpert1956/57hastriedtosortoutAristotle’saccount
Introduction 3
‘dialectic’isaformofargumentcloselyassociatedwiththeenigmaticfigureof
SocratesasdepictedbyPlato.TheApologycontainsthefollowingoutlineof
Socrates’ manner of arguing (20c–23c): acting as questioner, Socrates enters
intodialogue(διαλεγόμενος)forthesakeofexamining(ἐξέτασις)claimsto
knowledge elicitedfrom a respondent, whom he scrutinizes intheelenchus
(ἐλέγχειν).However,toSocrates,question-and-answerdialecticisasmucha
certainformofconductingone’slifeasitisacertainformofconductingan
argument (Ap. 28e); and, according to the man himself, it is this dialectical
‘business’thathasbroughthimbeforethecourttodefendhislife(Ap.20c–d).
Theactivityheredescribedcametobedesignatedδιαλέγεσθαι(conducting
a dialectical argument); and it is precisely this Socratic way of having an
argumentthatmightbesaidtobridgetheapparentgapbetweenthePlatonic
and Aristotelian concepts of dialectic, since this ‘business’ of question and
answerprovidesonebasic,commonfeatureinthedialecticofboth.ToPlato,
astoAristotle,thefundamentalmeaningofconductingadialecticaldebateis
captured by the Socratic notion of giving an account or taking one up for
examinationinquestion-and-answerform,i.e.λόγονδοῦναι/λαβεῖν(Prt.
336c–d,Rep.7.531d–e;Top.1.1.100a18–20,SE1.165a24–8).Itisastheheirsof
Socratic dialectic that the Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions of dialectic
becomecomparable.
The illustration overleaf represents a general model of Socratic dialectic
(πρὸς ἕτερον-argumentation). It is intended as a framework suitable to
describethedevelopmentofdialecticfromPlatotoAristotle;thus,itrepre-
sents the common ground shared by both. The main characters are the
questionerandtherespondent(1–2).Everyotherelementintheillustration
(3–7)refersbacktotheseinsomeway.
Each of the seven elements in this illustration appears in some form in
Plato’s depiction of dialectical argument (references will be given as we
proceed). But the description of each element is primarily taken from
Aristotle’s Topics and Sophistical Refutations. In these writings, Aristotle
seemstodescribeandrefineamethod ofargumentationwhichhefound,at
leastpartly,inPlato’sdepictionofdialectic.Thedialecticaldiscussionsinthe
Academymust,ofcourse,alsohavebeenasourceofinspirationtoAristotle;
but presently we shall concentrate attention on the relation to Plato’s dia-
logues. Obviously, the use of Aristotle’s terminology to describe a common
basis of dialectic involves the risk of misrepresenting Plato’s dialectic or
distorting the picture of development by viewing dialectic from the point of
oftheoriginanddevelopmentofdialectic.Roughlyspeaking,thepictureisthis:ZenoofElea‘invents’
dialectic;Socrates,PlatoandtheAcademybringitforward;andAristotlecompletesit.Forreservations
astoZeno’srole,seeDorion2002:200–8.