Dialectic Crossroads: Elenchos, Antieristical Devices, and Megaric Philosophy in the Sophistical Refutations

Authors

  • Claudia Mársico Universidad de Buenos Aires – CONICET – Buenos Aires, Argentina

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_14_10

Keywords:

Dialectic, Logic, Megarians, Aristotle, Fallacies

Abstract

Sophistical Refutations has been usually taken as an attempt to classify sophisms. This approach, however, risks of obscuring the extent of its own confrontation all purposes. This paperaims to emphasize the importance of Sophistical Re-futations as part of an antieristical program against Megarian philosophy, which was antithetical to Aristoteli an perspectives regarding epistemology. In this light, the resolution of eristical arguments exceeds logical study as well as the denunciation of their practical effects. Indeed, it is part of a discussion between groups inspired on Socrates about the scope and purpose of dialectic and philosophy in general.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AUBENQUE, P. (1962)Le problème de l'êtrechezAristote. Essai Sur la problematique aristotélicienne. Paris, PressesUniversitaires de France.BARNEY, R. (2009) “Thesophisticmovement”, en M. L. Gill – P. Pellegrin (Eds.), A Companion to Ancient Philosophy. Oxford, Blackwell.CANTO, M. (1989) L'intrigue philosophique. Essai sur l' Euthydème de Platon. Paris, Les BellesLettres.CLASSEN, C. (1981) “Aristotle’s Picture of theSophists”, en G. Kerferd (ed.), The Sophists and Their Legacy. Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag.CLAY, D. (1994) “The Origins of the Platonic Dialogue”, en P. Vander Waerdt (ed.), The Socratic Movement. Ithaca-New York, Cornell University Press.COLLI, G. (1955) Aristotele, Organon. Torino, Einaudi.DUMONT, J. (1986)Introduction à la méthoded'Aristote. Paris, Vrin.DÖRING, K. (1972)Die Megariker: kommentiertesammlung der testimonien.Amsterdam, Grüner.DORION, L. (1995) Les réfutations sophistiques, introduction, traduction et commentaire. Paris, Vrin.DÜRING, I. (1957) Aristotle and the Ancient Biographical Tradicion. Stockholm, Göteborg.EBBESEN, S. (1981) Commentators and Commentaries On Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchi. A Study of Post-Aristotelian Ancient and Medieval Writingson Fallacies. Volume I: The Greek Tradition. Leiden, Brill.GARDELLA, M. (2013) Las críticas de los filósofos megáricos a la ontología platónica, ms. (Tesis Lic. FFYL – UBA).GIANNANONI, G. (1990) Socratis et socratico rum reliquiae.Napoli, Bibliopolis (SSR).

HANFLING, O. (2001) Whatiswrongwith sorites arguments? Analysis, Chicago, v. 61 pp. 29–35.HAWTREY, R. (1981) Commentary on Plato's Euthydemus.Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society.HITCHCOCK, D. (2000) “Theorigin of professionaleristic”, T. Robinson – L. Brisson (eds.), Proceedings of the V Symposium Platonicum, Sankt Augustin, Academia.Keefe, R. – Smith, P. (eds.) (1997) Vagueness: A Reader. Cambridge-MA, The M.I.T. Press.KERFERD, G. (1981) The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge, CUP.KNEALE, W.; KNEALE, M. (1962) Thedevelopment of Logic. Oxford, OUP.MÁRSICO, C. (2010a) “Sócrates, Palamedes y otros malentendidos en torno del diálogo socrático como género discursivo”, en las Actas de lasV Jornadas Nacionales “La(s) retórica(s) en la antigüedad y sus proyecciones. Persuasión y comunicación, del mundo antiguo a las prácticas contemporáneas, Rosario. Universidad Nacional de Rosario.MÁRSICO, C. (2010b) Zonas de tensión dialógica. Perspectivas para la didáctica de la filosofía antigua, Colección dirigida por Alejandro Cerletti. Buenos Aires, Ediciones del Zorzal._______. (2011) “Megaric philosophy: between Socrates' stamp and theghost of Parmenides”, en N. Cordero (ed.), Parmenides, venerable and awe some. California, Parmenides Publishing._______.(2012) “‘Ni el hombre es blanco ni el caballo corre’. Argumentos antiplatónicos en Estilpón de Mégara”, Méthexis, 25._______.(2013) Filósofos socráticos, Testimonios y fragmentos. I. Megáricos y cirenaicos. Buenos Aires, Losada.MÁRSICO, C.;INVERSO, H. (2012) Platón, Eutidemo, introducción, traducción y notas.Buenos Aires, Losada.MARZOCCA, P. (2010a) “Diodoro Crono, Aristóteles y el problema de la potencia”, Actas del XV Congreso Nacional de Filosofía – AFRA. Buenos Aires, EDUNTREF._______.(2010b) “Las nociones de acto y potencia a la luz de la polémica con Diodoro Crono”, en C. Mársico (ed.), Legalidad cósmica y legalidad humana en el pensamiento clásico. Buenos Aires, UNSAMEdita.MENN, S. (2002) Plato and theMethod of Analysis.Phronesis, 47.3, pp. 193-223.MOLINE, J. (1969) Aristotle, Eubulides and the Sorites.Mind, 78, pp. 393-407.MULLER, R. (1988) Introduction a la pensee desmegariques. Paris-Bruxelles, Vrin-Ousia.NIGHTINGALE, A. (1995) Genres in dialogue. Cambridge, CUP.NOTOMI, N. (1999) TheUnity of Plato’sSophist: Between the Sophist and the Philosopher. Cambridge, CUP.PARRY, W.;HACKER, E. (1991) Aristotelian Logic. Newy York, SUNY Press.POULAKOS, J. “Extending and Correcting the Rheotrical Tradition: Aristotle’s Perception of theSophists”, en C. Lyle Johnstone (ed.), Theory, text, context: issues in Greelrhtoric and oratory. New York, SUNY, 1996.PRIEST, G. (2002) The Hooded Man. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 31, pp. 445-467.ROSSETTI, L. (1974-5) Allari cercadeilogoiso kratikoi perduti (I-III). Rivista di Studi Classici [Torino] XXII-III_______.(2003) Le dialogue socratiquein statu nascendi.Philosophie Antique 1, pp. 11-35.RÜSTOW, A. (1910) Der Lügner. Theorie, Geschichteund Auflösung. Leipzig, Teubner, p. 35-9.SCHREIBER, S. (2003)Aristotleon False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations. Albany, SUNY Press.SEUREN, P. (2005) Eubulides as a 20th-century semanticist.Language Sciences, 27, pp. 75-95.SORENSEN, R. (2003) “Eubulides and thePolitics of the Liar”, en A BriefHistory of theParadox: Philosophy and the Labyrinths of the Mind. Oxford, OUP.TRICOT, J. (1950) Aristote, Organon. Paris, Les Belles Lettres.VAN EEMEREN, F. et al. (2009) Fallacies and Judgements of Reasonableness: Empirical Reasearch Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. New York, Springer.VON FRITZ, K. (1931) Megariker. Realencyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswisseschaft. Supl. 5, 702-24. Stuttgart, Druckenmüller.WILLIAMSON, T. (2002) Vagueness. New York, Routledge.

Downloads

Published

2025-11-26

How to Cite

Mársico, C. (2025). Dialectic Crossroads: Elenchos, Antieristical Devices, and Megaric Philosophy in the Sophistical Refutations. Revista Archai, (14), 137. https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_14_10

Issue

No. 14 (2015): Vol. 14 No. 14 (2015): Revista Archai nº14 (january, 2015)

Section

Dossier

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Claudia Mársico

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.

1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.