§1ΠΕΡΙ ΣΟΦΙΣΤΙΚΩΝ ΕΛΕΓΧΩΝ.
ΠΕΡΙ δὲ τῶν σοφιστικῶν ἐλέγχων καὶ τῶν φαινομένων μὲν ἐλέγχων ὄντων δὲ παραλογισμῶν ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐλέγχων λέγωμεν, ἀρξάμενοι κατὰ φύσιν ἀπὸ τῶν πρώτων.
ON SOPHISTICAL REFUTATIONS. Let us discuss sophistical refutations and those which appear to be refutations but are really paralogisms and not refutations, beginning in the natural order from the first principles.
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν οἱ μὲν εἰσὶ συλλογισμοί, οἱ δ᾿ οὐκ ὄντες δοκοῦσι, φανερόν.
That some arguments, then, are genuine syllogisms, while others only seem to be so without being so, is clear.
Ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων τοῦτο γίνεται διά τινος ὁμοιότητος, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων ὡσαύτως ἔχει.
For just as this happens in other matters through a certain resemblance, so it is also with arguments.
Καὶ γὰρ τὴν ἕξιν οἱ μὲν ἔχουσιν εὖ, οἱ δὲ φαίνονται, φυλετικῶς φυσήσαντες καὶ ἐπισκευάσαντες αὑτούς, καὶ καλοὶ οἱ μὲν διὰ κάλλος, οἱ δὲ φαίνονται, κομμώσαντες αὑτούς.
For some people really have a good physical condition, while others only appear to have it by puffing themselves out and dressing themselves up like members of a tribe, and some are beautiful because of their beauty, while others only appear to be so by cosmetics.
Ἐπί τε τῶν ἀψύχων ὡσαύτως· καὶ γὰρ τούτων τὰ μὲν ἄργυρος τὰ δὲ χρυσός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς, τὰ δ᾿ ἔστι μὲν οὔ, φαίνεται δὲ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν, οἷον τὰ μὲν λιθαργύρινα καὶ τὰ καττιτέρινα ἀργυρᾶ, τὰ δὲ χολοβάφινα χρυσᾶ.
So too with inanimate things; for of these, some are truly silver and some gold, while others are not so but appear to be so to our senses, for example, things made of litharge or tin appear to be silver, and yellow-dyed things appear to be gold.
Τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ συλλογισμὸς καὶ ἔλεγχος ὁ μὲν ἔστιν, ὁ δ᾿ οὐκ ἔστι μέν, φαίνεται δὲ διὰ τὴν ἀπειρίαν· οἱ γὰρ ἄπειροι ὥσπερ ἂν ἀπέχοντες πόρρωθεν θεωροῦσιν.
In the same way, a syllogism and a refutation are sometimes real, and sometimes not real but appear to be so owing to inexperience; for the inexperienced view things as it were from a distance.
Ὁ μὲν γὰρ συλλογισμὸς ἐκ τινῶν ἐστὶ τεθέντων ὥστε λέγειν ἕτερόν τι ἐξ ἀνάγκης τῶν κειμένων διὰ τῶν κειμένων, ἔλεγχος δὲ συλλογισμὸς μετ᾿ ἀντιφάσεως τοῦ συμπεράσματος.
For a syllogism is a premise based on certain statements so as to state something different from those layed down, of necessity resulting from those layed down; while a refutation is a syllogism with a contradiction of the conclusion.
Οἱ δὲ τοῦτο ποιοῦσι μὲν οὔ, δοκοῦσι δὲ διὰ πολλὰς αἰτίας, ὧν εἷς τόπος εὐφυέστατός ἐστι καὶ δημοσιώτατος ὁ διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων.
Some, however, do not do this, but only appear to do so for many reasons, of which the most natural and most popular is the argument through names.
Ἐπεὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτὰ τὰ πράγματα διαλέγεσθαι φέροντας, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἀντὶ τῶν πραγμάτων χρώμεθα συμβόλοις, τὸ συμβαῖνον ἐπὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων ἡγούμεθα συμβαίνειν, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ψήφων τοῖς λογιζομένοις.
For since it is impossible to bring the actual things themselves into a discussion, but we use names as symbols in place of the things, we think that what follows in the case of the names follows also in the case of the things, just as those who calculate with counters.
Τὸ δ᾿ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅμοιον. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ ὀνόματα πεπέρανται καὶ τὸ τῶν λόγων πλῆθος, τὰ δὲ πράγματα τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἄπειρά ἐστιν.
But the two cases are not alike; for names and the number of arguments are finite, while things are infinite in number.
Ἀναγκαῖον οὖν πλείω τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον καὶ τοὔνομα τὸ ἓν σημαίνειν.
It is necessary, therefore, that the same argument and the single name should signify more than one thing.
Ὥσπερ οὖν κἀκεῖ οἱ μὴ δεινοὶ τὰς ψήφους φέρειν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιστημόνων παρακρούονται, τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων οἱ τῶν ὀνομάτων τῆς δυνάμεως ἄπειροι παραλογίζονται καὶ αὐτοὶ διαλεγόμενοι καὶ ἄλλων ἀκούοντες.
Just as, then, in the other case, those who are not skilled in managing the counters are deceived by the experts, in the same way in arguments also, those who are inexperienced in the power of names are misled, both when they argue themselves and when they listen to others.
Διὰ μὲν οὖν ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τὰς λεχθησομένας ἔστι καὶ συλλογισμὸς καὶ ἔλεγχος φαινόμενος μὲν οὐκ ὢν δέ.
For this reason, then, and for those which will be mentioned, there exist both a syllogism and a refutation which appear to be genuine but are not.
Ἐπεὶ δ᾿ ἐστί τισι μᾶλλον πρὸ ἔργου τὸ δοκεῖν εἶναι σοφοῖς ἢ τὸ εἶναι καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν (ἔστι γὰρ ἡ σοφιστικὴ φαινομένη σοφία οὖσα δ᾿ οὔ, καὶ ὁ σοφιστὴς χρηματιστὴς ἀπὸ φαινομένης σοφίας ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ οὔσης), δῆλον ὅτι ἀναγκαῖον τούτοις καὶ τὸ τοῦ σοφοῦ ἔργον δοκεῖν ποιεῖν μᾶλλον ἢ ποιεῖν καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν.
Since, however, for some people it is more profitable to seem to be wise than to be wise and not to seem so (for sophistry is an apparent but not a real wisdom, and the sophist is one who makes money from an apparent but not a real wisdom), it is clear that for these people it is necessary to seem to perform the function of a wise man rather than to perform it without seeming to do so.
Ἔστι δ᾿ ὡς ἓν πρὸς ἓν εἰπεῖν ἔργον περὶ ἕκαστον τοῦ εἰδότος ἀψευδεῖν μὲν αὐτὸν περὶ ὧν οἶδε, τὸν δὲ ψευδόμενον ἐμφανίζειν δύνασθαι· Ταῦτα δ᾿ ἐστὶ τὸ μὲν ἐν τῷ δύνασθαι δοῦναι λόγον, τὸ δ᾿ ἐν τῷ λαβεῖν.
To state the matter by comparing one thing with another, the function of the man who knows about any subject is to avoid falsehood himself about what he knows and to be able to expose one who lies; and of these functions, the one consists in being able to give an account, and the other in being able to receive one.
Ἀνάγκη οὖν τοὺς βουλομένους σοφιστεύειν τὸ τῶν εἰρημένων λόγων γένος ζητεῖν· πρὸ ἔργου γάρ ἐστιν· ἡ γὰρ τοιαύτη δύναμις ποιήσει φαίνεσθαι σοφόν, οὗ τυγχάνουσι τὴν προαίρεσιν ἔχοντες.
Those, therefore, who wish to play the sophist must seek the class of arguments we have mentioned; for this is profitable to them, since such a capacity will make them appear wise, which is the very purpose they have in view.
Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἔστι τι τοιοῦτον λόγων γένος, καὶ ὅτι τοιαύτης ἐφίενται δυνάμεως οὓς καλοῦμεν σοφιστάς, δῆλον.
That, then, there is such a class of arguments, and that those whom we call sophists aim at such a capacity, is clear.
Πόσα δ᾿ ἐστὶν εἴδη τῶν λόγων τῶν σοφιστικῶν, καὶ ἐκ πόσων τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἡ δύναμις αὕτη συνέστηκε, καὶ πόσα μέρη τυγχάνει τῆς πραγματείας ὄντα, καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν συντελούντων εἰς τὴν τέχνην ταύτην ἤδη λέγωμεν.
But how many species of sophistical arguments there are, and of how many elements this capacity consists, and how many parts this inquiry has, and about the other things that contribute to this art, let us now speak.
§2Ἔστι δὴ τῶν ἐν τῷ διαλέγεσθαι λόγων τέτταρα γένη, διδασκαλικοὶ καὶ διαλεκτικοὶ καὶ πειραστικοὶ καὶ ἐριστικοί, διδασκαλικοὶ μὲν οἱ ἐκ τῶν οἰκείων ἀρχῶν ἑκάστου μαθήματος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ τῶν τοῦ ἀποκρινομένου δοξῶν συλλογιζόμενοι (δεῖ γὰρ πιστεύειν τὸν μανθάνοντα), διαλεκτικοὶ δ᾿ οἱ ἐκ τῶν ἐνδόξων συλλογιστικοὶ ἀντιφάσεως, πειραστικοὶ δ᾿ οἱ ἐκ τῶν δοκούντων τῷ ἀποκρινομένῳ καὶ ἀναγκαίων εἰδέναι τῷ προσποιουμένῳ ἔχειν τὴν ἐπιστήμην (ὃν τρόπον δέ, διώρισται ἐν ἑτέροις), ἐριστικοὶ δ᾿ οἱ ἐκ τῶν φαινομένων ἐνδόξων μὴ ὄντων δὲ συλλογιστικοὶ ἢ φαινόμενοι συλλογιστικοί.
There are four classes of arguments used in discussion: dadascalic, dialectical, examination, and contentious. Didactical arguments are those which reason from the appropriate principles of each subject and not from the opinions of the answerer (for the learner must believe); dialectical arguments are those which reason to a contradiction from reputable opinions; examination arguments are those based on opinions held by the answerer and which must be known by anyone who claims to possess the knowledge (in what manner, has been defined elsewhere); and contentious arguments are those which reason or appear to reason from opinions which appear to be reputable but are not.
Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἀποδεικτικῶν ἐν τοῖς Ἀναλυτικοῖς εἴρηται, περὶ δὲ τῶν διαλεκτικῶν καὶ πειραστικῶν ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις.
Now concerning demonstrative arguments, we have spoken in the Analytics, and concerning dialectical and examination arguments, in other works.
Περὶ δὲ τῶν ἀγωνιστικῶν καὶ ἐριστικῶν νῦν λέγωμεν.
Let us now discuss competitive and contentious arguments.
§3Πρῶτον δὴ ληπτέον πόσων στοχάζονται οἱ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἀγωνιζόμενοι καὶ διαφιλονεικοῦντες.
First, then, we must grasp how many aims those who compete and dispute in arguments have in view.
Ἔστι δὲ πέντε ταῦτα τὸν ἀριθμόν, ἔλεγχος καὶ ψεῦδος καὶ παράδοξον καὶ σολοικισμὸς καὶ πέμπτον τὸ ποιῆσαι ἀδολεσχῆσαι τὸν προσδιαλεγόμενον· τοῦτο δ᾿ ἐστὶ τὸ πολλάκις ἀναγκάζεσθαι ταὐτὸ λέγειν· ἢ τὸ μὴ ὄν, ἀλλὰ τὸ φαινόμενον ἕκαστον εἶναι τούτων.
These are five in number: refutation, falsity, paradox, solecism, and fifthly, making the interlocutor babble (that is, to force him to repeat the same thing many times); or else, when each of these is not real, but only apparent.
Μάλιστα μὲν γὰρ προαιροῦνται φαίνεσθαι ἐλέγχοντες, δεύτερον δὲ ψευδόμενόν τι δεικνύναι, τρίτον εἰς παράδοξον ἄγειν, τέταρτον δὲ σολοικίζειν ποιεῖν· τοῦτο δ᾿ ἐστὶ τὸ ποιῆσαι τῇ λέξει βαρβαρίζειν ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τὸν ἀποκρινόμενον· τελευταῖον δὲ τὸ πλεονάκις ταὐτὸ λέγειν.
For they choose, above all, to appear to refute; secondly, to show that the opponent is stating a falsehood; thirdly, to lead him into a paradox; fourthly, to make him commit a solecism (that is, to make the answerer use ungrammatical language as a result of the argument); and last, to make him say the same thing repeatedly.