§7.5#1Ὅτι δὲ χαλεπώτερον κατασκευάζειν ἢ ἀνασκευάζειν ὅρον, ἐκ τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα ῥηθησομένων φανερόν.
That it is more difficult to establish a definition than to overthrow it is clear from what will be said hereafter.
Καὶ γὰρ ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ λαβεῖν παρὰ τῶν ἐρωτωμένων τὰς τοιαύτας προτάσεις οὐκ εὐπετές, οἷον ὅτι τῶν ἐν τῷ ἀποδοθέντι λόγῳ τὸ μὲν γένος τὸ δὲ διαφορά, καὶ ὅτι ἐν τῷ τί ἐστι τὸ γένος καὶ αἱ διαφοραὶ κατηγοροῦνται.
For to discern the definition itself and to obtain from those questioned such premises—for instance, that of the elements in the rendered definition, one is the genus and the other is the difference, and that the genus and the differences are predicated in the category of 'what it is'—is not easy.
Ἄνευ δὲ τούτων ἀδύνατον ὁρισμοῦ γένεσθαι συλλογισμόν· εἰ γάρ τινα καὶ ἄλλα ἐν τῷ τί ἐστι τοῦ πράγματος κατηγορεῖται, ἄδηλον πότερον ὁ ῥηθεὶς ἢ ἕτερος αὐτοῦ ὁρισμός ἐστιν, ἐπειδὴ ὁρισμός ἐστι λόγος ὁ τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι σημαίνων.
And without these, it is impossible for a reasoning of a definition to arise; for if any other things are predicated in the 'what it is' of the thing, it is unclear whether the one stated or another is its definition, since a definition is a phrase signifying the essence.
Δῆλον δὲ καὶ ἐκ τῶνδε.
This is also clear from the following.
Ῥᾷον γὰρ ἓν συμπεράνασθαι ἢ πολλά.
For it is easier to conclude one thing than many.
Ἀναιροῦντι μὲν οὖν ἀπόχρη πρὸς ἕνα διαλεγῆναι (ἓν γὰρ ὁποιονοῦν ἀνασκευάσαντες ἀνῃρηκότες ἐσόμεθα τὸν ὅρον), κατασκευάζοντι δὲ πάντα ἀνάγκη συμβιβάζειν ὅτι ὑπάρχει τὰ ἐν τῷ ὅρῳ.
Thus, for the one who overthrows, it is enough to argue against one point (for if we overthrow any single element, we shall have overthrown the definition), whereas for the one who establishes, it is necessary to bring agreement on all points, showing that the elements in the definition belong.
Ἔτι κατασκευάζοντι μὲν καθόλου οἰστέον συλλογισμόν· δεῖ γὰρ κατὰ παντὸς οὗ τοὔνομα κατηγορεῖσθαι τὸν ὅρον, καὶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ἀντιστρέφειν, εἰ μέλλει ἴδιος εἶναι ὁ ἀποδοθεὶς ὅρος.
Furthermore, the one who establishes must produce a universal reasoning; for the definition must be predicated of everything of which the name is predicated, and moreover, in addition to this, it must convert, if the rendered definition is to be peculiar.
Ἀνασκευάζοντα δ᾿ οὐκέτι ἀνάγκη δεῖξαι τὸ καθόλου· ἀπόχρη γὰρ τὸ δεῖξαι ὅτι οὐκ ἀληθεύεται περὶ τινὸς τῶν ὑπὸ τοὔνομα ὁ λόγος.
But for the one who overthrows, it is no longer necessary to show the universal; for it is enough to show that the definition is not true of some one of the things under the name.
Εἴ τε καὶ καθόλου δέοι ἀνασκευάσαι, οὐδ᾿ ὣς τὸ ἀντιστρέφειν ἀναγκαῖον ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀνασκευάζειν· ἀπόχρη γὰρ ἀνασκευάζοντι καθόλου τὸ δεῖξαι ὅτι κατὰ τινὸς ὧν τοὔνομα κατηγορεῖται ὁ λόγος οὐ κατηγορεῖται.
And even if it should be necessary to overthrow universally, even so, converting is not necessary for overthrowing; for it is enough for the one who overthrows universally to show that the definition is not predicated of some one of those things of which the name is predicated.
Τὸ δ᾿ ἀνάπαλιν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον πρὸς τὸ δεῖξαι, ὅτι καθ᾿ ὧν ὁ λόγος μὴ κατηγορεῖται τοὔνομα κατηγορεῖται.
Conversely, it is not necessary to show that the name is predicated of those things of which the definition is not predicated.
Ἔτι εἰ καὶ παντὶ ὑπάρχει τῷ ὑπὸ τοὔνομα, μὴ μόνῳ δέ, ἀνῃρημένος γίνεται ὁ ὁρισμός.
Moreover, even if it belongs to everything under the name, but not to it alone, the definition is overthrown.
Ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ τὸ ἴδιον καὶ τὸ γένος ἔχει· ἐν ἀμφοτέροις γὰρ ἀνασκευάζειν ἢ κατασκευάζειν ῥᾷον.
The same holds also for the property and the genus; for in both cases, it is easier to overthrow than to establish.
Περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ἰδίου φανερὸν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων· ὡς γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ ἐν συμπλοκῇ τὸ ἴδιον ἀποδίδοται, ὥστ᾿ ἀνασκευάζειν μὲν ἔστιν ἓν ἀνελόντα, κατασκευάζοντι δὲ ἀνάγκη πάντα συλλογίζεσθαι.
Concerning the property, then, it is clear from what has been said; for as a rule the property is rendered in combination, so that one can overthrow it by destroying one element, whereas the one who establishes must conclude all of them by reasoning.
Σχεδὸν δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ πάντα, ὅσα πρὸς τὸν ὁρισμόν, καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἴδιον ἁρμόσει λέγεσθαι· παντί τε γὰρ δεῖ τῷ ὑπὸ τοὔνομα τὸν κατασκευάζοντα δεικνύναι ὅτι ὑπάρχει, ἀνασκευάζοντι δ᾿ ἀπόχρη ἑνὶ δεῖξαι μὴ ὑπάρχον· εἴ τε καὶ παντὶ ὑπάρχει, μὴ μόνῳ δέ, καὶ οὕτως ἀνεσκευασμένον γίνεται, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὁρισμοῦ λέγεται.
And almost all other points that apply to the definition will fit to be said also of the property; for the one who establishes must show that it belongs to everything under the name, whereas for the one who overthrows, it is enough to show that it does not belong to one; and even if it belongs to everything, but not to it alone, in this way too it is overthrown, just as was said in the case of the definition.
Περὶ δὲ τοῦ γένους, ὅτι κατασκευάζειν μὲν ἀνάγκη μοναχῶς παντὶ δείξαντα ὑπάρχειν, ἀνασκευάζοντι δὲ διχῶς· καὶ γὰρ εἰ μηδενὶ καὶ εἰ τινὶ δέδεικται μὴ ὑπάρχον, ἀνῄρηται τὸ ἐν ἀρχῇ.
Concerning the genus, the one who establishes must of necessity show in one way that it belongs to everything, whereas the one who overthrows can do so in two ways; for if it has been shown either to belong to nothing or not to belong to some, the original position is overthrown.
Ἔτι κατασκευάζοντι μὲν οὐκ ἀπόχρη ὅτι ὑπάρχει δεῖξαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ διότι ὡς γένος ὑπάρχει δεικτέον· ἀνασκευάζοντι δ᾿ ἱκανὸν τὸ δεῖξαι μὴ ὑπάρχον ἢ τινὶ ἢ μὴ παντί.
Furthermore, for the one who establishes, it is not enough to show that it belongs, but it must also be shown that it belongs as genus; whereas for the one who overthrows, it is sufficient to show that it does not belong either to some or not to all.
Ἔοικε δ᾿, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις τὸ διαφθεῖραι τοῦ ποιῆσαι ῥᾷον, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων τὸ ἀνασκευάσαι τοῦ κατασκευάσαι.
And it seems that, just as in other matters it is easier to destroy than to produce, so too in these cases it is easier to overthrow than to establish.