"Utrum figura dictionis sit fallacia in dictione. et quod non videtur". A Taxonomic Puzzle or how Medieval Logicians Came to Account for an Odd Question by an Impossible Answer

In Alain de Libera, Laurent Cesalli & Frédéric Goubier (eds.), A. de Libera, L. Cesalli et F. Goubier (éd.), Formal Approaches and Natural Language in Medieval Logic. Barcelona - Roma: Barcelona - Roma, Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Etudes Médiévales. pp. 239-267 (2016)

Authors
Leone Gazziero
Université Charles-de-Gaulle - Lille 3
Abstract
One of the singularities of Latin exegesis of Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi, is that it arbitrarily brought together two families of fallacies, the «figure of speech» and the «accident», despite the fact that they are on either side of the divide between sophisms related to expression and sophisms independent of expression, a divide that lays at the heart of Aristotle’s taxonomy of sophistic arguments. What is behind this surprising identification? The talk is meant to show that it actually originates from a curious mistake in Boethius’ translation of Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi, 22, 178b 36-37 which radically transformed the nature of the argument at stake. While it was originally an example of the fallacies related to the «figure of speech», Boethius’ translation wrongly brings about two arguments instead of one, both related to the «accident». This explains why authors from the Latin tradition came to think that fallacies of «figure of speech» were linked to fallacies of «accident» closely enough to ask whether they actually fell outside expression, even though it does not at first glance appear that such a possibility was allowed or even suggested by Aristotle’s text. This odd question illustrates some of the remarkable features of the medieval archive and how some of its most peculiar problems came to be. It specifically allows us to reconstruct the mechanisms through which a minor disturbance in the letter of the text leads to a whole new way of organising its exegetical material.
Keywords Logic  Medieval Philosophy  Aristotle
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
External links

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

Οἷον Ψυχὴ Ὁ Μῦθος.Roger Travis - forthcoming - Classical Review.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Latin “Third Man”. A Survey and Edition of Texts From the XIIIth Century.Leone Gazziero - 2012 - Cahiers de L’Institut du Moyen Age Grec Et Latin 81:11-93.
What is a Sophistical Refutation?David Botting - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):213-232.
Fallacies of Accident.David Botting - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):267-289.
Figura dictionis e predicazione nel commento ai Sophistici Elenchi di Egidio Romano'.A. Tabarroni - 1991 - Documenti E Studi Sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale 2 (1):183-215.
How the Fallacy of Accident Got Its Name.Allan Bäck - 2015 - Vivarium 53 (2-4):142-169.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-02-13

Total views
76 ( #116,671 of 2,289,680 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #49,853 of 2,289,680 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature