Search Results
1 Introduction A discussion of methodos in the Sophist usually concerns diaeresis . This leaves out, however, at least one other critical mode of inquiry both discussed and employed in the dialogue, namely elenchos . (Because of the unusual characterization of it in this dialogue
Euthydemus, 283e–284b. See also 285d–286e. 38 Fernando Ferreira very difficult one to contend with. In the Sophist , Plato writes the following forceful words: […] we are really engaged in an altogether difficult investigation, for to appear and to seem, but not to be, and to say something, but not what is
1 Introduction Was Socrates a sophist? Does the standard division between the pre-Socratic and Socratic traditions hold up to scrutiny? Recent interpreters have suggested that these divisions are misleading at best. Rachel Barney includes Socrates in a list of fifth-century sophists along
first line of our passage, see Muniz and Rudebusch 2004. 6 In light of the close connection with the Sophist that I will suggest, we might well think Plato takes any necessary discussion about why there must be unchanging complex unities to be addressed there, particularly in the arguments against the
first line of our passage, see Muniz and Rudebusch 2004. 6 In light of the close connection with the Sophist that I will suggest, we might well think Plato takes any necessary discussion about why there must be unchanging complex unities to be addressed there, particularly in the arguments against the
33, 182b6–31), by “depending on the same cause”/“of the same kind” he refers to one specific fallacy among the thirteen ones which he has identified in SE 4–5. At SE 15, 174a23–29 he does recognise the possibility that the sophist, as an additional trick to confuse his interlocutor, employs two
, 182b6-3l), by "depending on the same cause" !"of the same kind" he refers to one specijic fallacy among the thirteen ones which he has identified in SE 4-5. At SE 15, 174a23-29 he does recognise the possibility that the sophist, as an additional trick to confuse his interlocutor, employs two
“(deduction to an) apparent contradiction” to designate the fallacy he calls “ignorance of refutation” (cp. SE 5 167a21–2, SE 6 168a17–19, 168b17–21): in a case of ignoratio elenchi , the sophist syllogizes to a conclusion; but it is not the genuine contradictory of the answerer’s thesis. Some of the other
refutation" (cp. SE 5 167a21-2, SE 6 168aI7-19, 168bI7-21): in a case of ignoratio elenchi, the sophist syllogizes to a conclusion; but it is not the genuine contradictory of the answerer's thesis. Some of the other twelve modes mayaiso share this flaw; but regardless of the relevance of their
without it being immediately clear what, stands at the beginning of philosophical analysis in general and the development of logic in particular. Not that Aristotle was the first ever to engage in such analysis - of course there was Plato before him, but also some Sophists and philosophers responding