§3.6#2Ἀδιορίστου μὲν οὖν ὄντος τοῦ προβλήματος μοναχῶς ἀνασκευάζειν ἐνδέχεται, οἷον εἰ ἔφησεν ἡδονὴν ἀγαθὸν εἶναι ἢ μὴ ἀγαθόν, καὶ μηδὲν ἄλλο προσδιώρισεν.
Therefore, when the problem is indefinite, it is possible to overthrow it in only one way; as for example, if he said that pleasure is good or is not good, and added no further definition.
Εἰ μὲν γάρ τινα ἔφησεν ἡδονὴν ἀγαθὸν εἶναι, δεικτέον καθόλου ὅτι οὐδεμία, εἰ μέλλει ἀναιρεῖσθαι τὸ προκείμενον.
For if he said that some pleasure is good, it must be shown universally that none is, if the proposition is to be overthrown.
Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ εἴ τινα ἔφησεν ἡδονὴν μὴ εἶναι ἀγαθόν, δεικτέον καθόλου ὅτι πᾶσα· ἄλλως δ᾿ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται ἀναιρεῖν.
Similarly also, if he said that some pleasure is not good, it must be shown universally that all is; otherwise it is not possible to overthrow it.
Ἐὰν γὰρ δείξωμεν ὅτι ἐστί τις ἡδονὴ οὐκ ἀγαθὸν ἢ ἀγαθόν, οὔπω ἀναιρεῖται τὸ προκείμενον.
For if we show that some pleasure is not good, or is good, the proposition is not yet overthrown.
Δῆλον οὖν ὅτι ἀναιρεῖν μὲν μοναχῶς ἐνδέχεται, κατασκευάζειν δὲ διχῶς· ἄν τε γὰρ καθόλου δείξωμεν ὅτι πᾶσα ἡδονὴ ἀγαθόν, ἄν τε ὅτι ἐστί τις ἡδονὴ ἀγαθόν, δεδειγμένον ἔσται τὸ προκείμενον.
It is clear, therefore, that while it is possible to overthrow in only one way, it is possible to establish in two ways; for whether we show universally that all pleasure is good, or that some pleasure is good, the proposition will have been shown.
Ὁμοίως δὲ κἂν δέῃ διαλεχθῆναι ὅτι ἐστί τις ἡδονὴ οὐκ ἀγαθόν, ἐὰν δείξωμεν ὅτι οὐδεμία ἀγαθὸν ἢ ὅτι τις οὐκ ἀγαθόν, διειλεγμένοι ἐσόμεθα ἀμφοτέρως, καὶ καθόλου καὶ ἐπὶ μέρους, ὅτι ἐστί τις ἡδονὴ οὐκ ἀγαθόν.
Similarly also, even if it is necessary to argue that some pleasure is not good, if we show that none is good, or that some is not good, we shall have argued in both ways, both universally and particularly, that some pleasure is not good.
Διωρισμένης δὲ τῆς θέσεως οὔσης, διχῶς ἀναιρεῖν ἔσται, οἷον εἰ τεθείη τινὶ μὲν ὑπάρχειν ἡδονῇ ἀγαθῷ εἶναι, τινὶ δ᾿ οὐχ ὑπάρχειν·
But when the thesis is defined, it will be possible to overthrow it in two ways; as for example, if it is laid down that to some pleasure it belongs to be good, and to some it does not.
εἴτε γὰρ πᾶσα δειχθείη ἡδονὴ ἀγαθὸν εἴτε μηδεμία, ἀνῃρημένον ἔσται τὸ προκείμενον.
For whether all pleasure is shown to be good, or none, the proposition will have been overthrown.
Εἰ δὲ μίαν ἡδονὴν μόνην ἀγαθὸν ἔθηκεν εἶναι, τριχῶς ἐνδέχεται ἀναιρεῖν· δείξαντες γὰρ ὅτι πᾶσα ἢ ὅτι οὐδεμία ἢ ὅτι πλείους μιᾶς ἀγαθόν, ἀνῃρηκότες ἐσόμεθα τὸ προκείμενον.
But if he laid down that only one single pleasure is good, it is possible to overthrow it in three ways; for by showing either that all, or that none, or that more than one are good, we shall have overthrown the proposition.
Ἐπὶ πλεῖον δὲ τῆς θέσεως διορισθείσης, οἷον ὅτι ἡ φρόνησις μόνη τῶν ἀρετῶν ἐπιστήμη, τετραχῶς ἔστιν ἀναιρεῖν· δειχθέντος γὰρ ὅτι πᾶσα ἀρετὴ ἐπιστήμη ἢ ὅτι οὐδεμία ἢ ὅτι καὶ ἄλλη τις, οἷον ἡ δικαιοσύνη, ἢ ὅτι αὐτὴ ἡ φρόνησις οὐκ ἐπιστήμη, ἀνῃρημένον ἔσται τὸ προκείμενον.
And when the thesis is defined still further, as for example, that prudence alone of the virtues is knowledge, it is possible to overthrow it in four ways; for if it is shown either that all virtue is knowledge, or that none is, or that some other as well, such as justice, is, or that prudence itself is not knowledge, the proposition will have been overthrown.
Χρήσιμον δὲ καὶ τὸ ἐπιβλέπειν ἐπὶ τὰ καθ᾿ ἕκαστα, ἐν οἷς ὑπάρχειν τι ἢ μὴ εἴρηται, καθάπερ ἐν τοῖς καθόλου προβλήμασιν.
It is also useful to look at individual cases in which something is said to belong or not to belong, just as in universal problems.
Ἔτι δ᾿ ἐν τοῖς γένεσιν ἐπιβλεπτέον, διαιροῦντα κατ᾿ εἴδη μέχρι τῶν ἀτόμων, καθὰ προείρηται· ἄν τε γὰρ παντὶ φαίνηται ὑπάρχον ἄν τε μηδενί, πολλὰ προενέγκαντι ἀξιωτέον καθόλου ὁμολογεῖν ἢ φέρειν ἔνστασιν ἐπὶ τίνος οὐχ οὕτως.
Moreover, in the case of genera, one must look by dividing them into species down to individuals, as was said before; for whether it appears to belong to all or to none, after bringing forward many instances, one should claim that the other should agree universally, or bring an objection in the case of which it is not so.
Ἔτι ἐφ᾿ ὧν ἔστιν ἢ εἴδει ἢ ἀριθμῷ διορίσαι τὸ συμβεβηκός, σκεπτέον εἰ μηδὲν τούτων ὑπάρχει, οἷον ὅτι ὁ χρόνος οὐ κινεῖται οὐδ᾿ ἐστὶ κίνησις, καταριθμησάμενον πόσα εἴδη κινήσεως· εἰ γὰρ μηδὲν τούτων ὑπάρχει τῷ χρόνῳ, δῆλον ὅτι οὐ κινεῖται οὐδ᾿ ἐστὶ κίνησις.
Moreover, in those cases where it is possible to define the accident either by species or by number, one must examine whether none of these belongs; as for example, that time does not move, nor is it a motion, by counting up how many species of motion there are; for if none of these belongs to time, it is clear that it does not move, nor is it a motion.
Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὅτι ἡ ψυχὴ οὐκ ἀριθμός, διελόμενον ὅτι πᾶς ἀριθμὸς ἢ περιττὸς ἢ ἄρτιος· εἰ γὰρ ἡ ψυχὴ μήτε περιττὸν μήτε ἄρτιον, δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἀριθμός.
Similarly also, that the soul is not a number, by dividing that every number is either odd or even; for if the soul is neither odd nor even, it is clear that it is not a number.
Πρὸς μὲν οὖν τὸ συμβεβηκὸς διὰ τῶν τοιούτων καὶ οὕτως ἐπιχειρητέον.
Against the accident, therefore, one must argue through such means and in this manner.