David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In D. Frede & B. Inwood (eds.), Language and Learning, Proceedings of the 9th Symposium Hellenisticum. Cambridge University Press (2006)
ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the Stoic treatment of fallacies that are based on lexical ambiguities. It provides a detailed analysis of the relevant passages, lays bare textual and interpretative difficulties, explores what the Stoic view on the matter implies for their theory of language, and compares their view with Aristotle’s. In the paper I aim to show that, for the Stoics, fallacies of ambiguity are complexes of propositions and sentences and thus straddle the realms of meaning (which is the domain of logic) and of linguistic expressions (which is the domain of linguistics), but also involve a pragmatic element; that the Stoics believe that the premises of the fallacies, when uttered, have only one meaning and are true, and thus should be conceded; that hence there is no need for a mental process of disambiguation in the listeners; that Aristotle, by contrast, appears to assume that the premises always have all their meanings, and accordingly recommends that the listeners explicitly disambiguate them, which presupposes a process of mental disambiguation. I proffer two readings of the Stoic advice that we ‘be silent’ when confronted with a fallacy of ambiguity in dialectical discourse, and explicate how each leads to an overall consistent interpretation of the textual evidence. Finally, I demonstrate that the method advocated by the Stoics works in all cases of fallacies of lexical ambiguity.
|Keywords||Stoic dialectic ambiguity lexical ambiguity Aristotelian dialectic fallacies of ambiguity homonymy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Galen (1977). Galen on Language and Ambiguity: An English Translation of Galen's "De Captionibus (On Fallacies)" with Introduction, Text, and Commentary. Brill Academic Pub.
Susanne Bobzien (2007). Aristotle's De Interpretatione 8 is About Ambiguity. In D. Scott (ed.), Maieusis: Essays in Ancient Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 301.
Catherine Atherton (1993). The Stoics on Ambiguity. Cambridge University Press.
David Botting (2012). What is a Sophistical Refutation? Argumentation 26 (2):213-232.
Susanne Bobzien (2012). How to Give Someone Horns – Paradoxes of Presupposition in Antiquity. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 15:159-84.
Christopher W. Tindale (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge University Press.
Jan Albert van Laar (2011). Ambiguity in Argument. Argument and Computation 1 (2):125-146.
Richard Kaye (1991). A Generalization of Specker's Theorem on Typical Ambiguity. Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (2):458-466.
Jonathan E. Adler (2000). Three Fallacies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (5):665-666.
Brendan S. Gillon (1990). Ambiguity, Generality, and Indeterminacy: Tests and Definitions. [REVIEW] Synthese 85 (3):391 - 416.
Pieter Sjoerd Hasper (2013). The Ingredients of Aristotle's Theory of Fallacy. Argumentation 27 (1):31-47.
W. Kip Viscusi & Harrell Chesson (1999). Hopes and Fears: The Conflicting Effects of Risk Ambiguity. Theory and Decision 47 (2):157-184.
Added to index2012-10-29
Total downloads101 ( #10,627 of 1,098,976 )
Recent downloads (6 months)31 ( #3,122 of 1,098,976 )
How can I increase my downloads?