Authors
Colin King
Providence College
Abstract
Aristotle determines eristic argument as argument which either operates upon the basis of acceptable premisses (endoxa) and merely give the impression of being deductive, or argument which truly is deductive but operates upon the basis of premisses which seem to be acceptable, but are not (or, again, argument which uses both of these mechanisms). I attempt to understand what Aristotle has in mind when he says that someone is deceived into accepting premisses which seem to be acceptable but which are really not, and how this disqualifies such arguments from being dialectical. In the first section of the paper I interpret Aristotle’s notion of endoxa in terms of a relational concept of acceptability. Real Índoxa are propositions which are accepted by a qualified group or individual. False endoxa may also be accepted by someone or some group, and may even be true, but they are used to serve the purposes of eristical argumentation, which departs from certain standards of dialectical argumentation articulated in the notion of endoxa as a norm for premiss-acceptance. In particular, eristic arguments may even be valid in the sense of a syllogismos while still failing to be proper dialectical arguments. In the second part of the paper I consider how this can be, in examining certain types of fallacies in the Sophistical Refutations and the relationship between fallacious argumentation and false endoxa.
Keywords Aristotle  Endoxa  Fallacies
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

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

An Essay on Belief and Acceptance.L. Jonathan Cohen - 1992 - New York: Clarendon Press.
Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.
Aristotle and the Methods of Ethics.Jonathan Barnes - 1980 - Revue Internationale de Philosophie 34 (3):490.
A Greek-English Lexicon.P. M., H. G. Liddell, R. Scott & H. Stuart Jones - 1935 - Journal of Hellenic Studies 55:261.
Aristotle and the so-Called Fallacy of Equivocation.Christopher Kirwan - 1979 - Philosophical Quarterly 29 (114):35-46.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What is a Sophistical Refutation?David Botting - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):213-232.
Fallacies of Accident.David Botting - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):267-289.
Opinions as Appearances: Endoxa in Aristotle.Kurt Pritzl O. P. - 1994 - Ancient Philosophy 14 (1):41-50.
Fallacies and Formal Logic in Aristotle.David Hitchcock - 2000 - History and Philosophy of Logic 21 (3):207-221.
The Value of Endoxa in Ethical Argument.Sherwin Klein - 1992 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 9 (2):141 - 157.
False Dilemma: A Systematic Exposition.Taeda Tomić - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (4):1-22.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-11-13

Total views
422 ( #15,980 of 2,385,988 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
41 ( #17,985 of 2,385,988 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes