Aristotle’s Socratic Peirastic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_14_9Palavras-chave:
peirastic, dialectic, elenchus, Socrates, AristotleResumo
The aim of this essay is to present a strai-ghtforward interpretation of some main passages where Aristotle reveals what he understands by πειραστική. Usually interpreters believe his inspiration has drawn from the philosophical profile of Socrates and its elenchus. Faced with a number of difficulties presented by influential views, I argue that there are no reason to believe that Aristotle would have distinguished peirastic from dialectic neither by the figures of their syllogisms nor because their starting points have a different nature of the endoxa. By contrast, I defend the thesis that peirastic can be seen as a certain kind of expert knowledge that in practice becomes manifest as a successful refutation moment of the philosophically applied dialectic; at that moment the dialectic stricto sensu becomes reluctant to change the course of search for the principles of expert knowledge, insofar as such a movement would be a change in the direction posed by the sophistical threat of apparent wisdom on a given subject. I try to show how part of the – in Aristotle’s view – dialectical activity of Socrates fits in with various requirements of their inferential art of Topics. I suggest that this does not mean that Aristotle has built the peirastic on Socratic elenchus, but that he has used part of Socrates’ activity as philosophical evidence for his own fundamental dialectical conceptions.
Downloads
Referências
BÄCK, A. (1999) “Aristotle’s Discovery of First Principles” en M. Sim (ed.) From Puzzles to Principles? Essays on Aristotle’s Dialectic, Lanham, 163-181.BARNES, J. (2002) Aristotle Posterior Analytics, Oxford.BENSON, H. H. (2011) “Socratic Method” en D. R. Morrison (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, New York, 179-200.BERTI, E. (2008) Las razones de Aristóteles, trad. de H. A. Gianneschi y M. Monteverdi, Buenos Aires.BOLTON, R. (1993) “Aristotle’s Account of the Socratic Elenchus” en C. C. W. Taylor (ed.) Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy vol. XI, Oxford, (reimp. 2003), 121-152.BOLTON, R. (1994) “Aristotle’s Conception of Metaphysics as a Science” en T. Scaltsas, D. Charles y M. L. Gill (eds.) Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Oxford, 321-354._______. (1999) “The Epistemological basis of Aristotelian Dialectic” en M. Sim (ed.) From Puzzles to Principles? Essays in Aristotle’s Dialectic, Maryland, 57-105. _______. (2012) “The Aristotelian Elenchus” en J. L. Fink (ed.) The Development of Dialectic from Plato to Aristotle, Cambridge, 270-295.BONITZ, H. (19552) Index aristotelicus, Berlín.BRICKHOUSE, T. C. y Smith, N. D. (2002) “The Socratic Elenchos?” en G. A. Scott (ed.). Does Socrates have a Method?: Rethinking the Elenchus in Plato’s Dialogues and Beyond, Pennsylvania, 145-157.BRUNSCHWIG, J. (1999) Introducción y notas a los Tópicos de Aristóteles, trad. de Jorge H. Evans Civit, Madrid.BÜLOW-JACOBSEN, A. y EBBESEN, S. (1982) “Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 35: An Edition of the Scholia on Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchi” en Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 43, 45-120.BURNET, J. (1900-1907) Platonis Opera: Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit, 5 vols., Oxford.CODE, A. (1999) “Metaphysics and Logic.” en Gerson, Lloyd P. Aristotle Critical Assessments, vol. I, Logic and Metaphysics, London-New York, 167-185.COPE, E. M. (1867) An Introduction to Aristotle’s Rethoric with Analysis, Notes and Appendices, London - Cambridge.COPE, E. M. y SANDYS, J. W. (1877-2009) Aristotle: Rethoric. Vols. i y ii, Cambridge.COUVREUR, P. (19012) Hermiae Alexandrini in Platonis Phaedrum scholia, París.DE RIJK, L. M. (2002) Aristotle Semantics and Ontology, Volume II: The Metaphysics. Semantics in Aristotle’s Strategy of Argument, London-Boston-Köln.DICKEY, E. (1996) Greek Forms of Address From Herodotus to Lucian, Oxford.DORION, L.-A. (2011) “Aristote et l’elenchos socratique” en Les études philosophiques nº 99, 563-582.DÜRING, I (2000) Aristóteles. Exposición e interpretación y de su pensamiento, México.FAIT, P. (2002) “Aristóteles y los límites de la dialéctica. Notas sobre el arte de la crítica (peirastik)” en Anuario Filosófico 35, 435-462.GAMBRA, J. M. (2002) “Dialéctica, ciencia y metafísica en Aristóteles” en Anuario Filosófico 35, 81-125
GRIMALDI, W. M. A. (1980) Aristotle, Rhetoric I, A Commentary, Wetteren.GROTE, G. F. R. S. (1865-2009) Plato and the Other Companions to Sokrates vol. 1, London - Cambridge.GUTHRIE, W. K. C. (1981) A History of Greek Philosophy VI: Aristotle an Encounter, Cambridge.HAUSRATH, A. y HUNGER, H. (1970 y 1959) Corpus fabularum Aesopicarum, vols. I 1 y 2, Leipzig.HAYDUCK, M. (1888) Asclepii in Aristotelis Metaphysicorum libros A – Z commentaria (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca VI.ii), Berlín._______. (1891) Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca I), BerlínIRWIN, T., H. (19954) Aristotle’s First Principles, Oxford.JOHNSON, R. H. y Blair, J. A. (2000) “Informal Logic: An Overview” en Informal Logic 20.2, 93-107.KAHN, C. H. (1998) Plato and the Socratic Dialogue. The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form, Cambridge.KIRWAN, C. (1984) Aristotle’s Metaphysics Books ἐ,ἐ and ἐ. (Translated with Notes), Oxford.KRABBE, E. C. W. y VAN LAAR, J. A. (2007) “About Old an New Dialectic: Dialogues, Fallacies, and Strategies” en Informal Logic 27.1, 27-58.LESHER, J. H. (2002) “Parmenidean Elenchos” en G. A. Scott (ed.). Does Socrates have a Method?: Rethinking the Elenchus in Plato’s Dialogues and Beyond, Pennsylvania, 19-35.lsJ = Liddell, H. G. y Scott, R. (Comp.), Stuart Jones, H. (Rev.), McKenzie, R. (Ass.) (Ninth Ed. 1940 with Rev. Supp. 1996) A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford.MÁRSICO, C. (2011) Platón. Hipias mayor. Hipias menor. Introducción, traducción y notas, Buenos Aires.MCDONALD CORNFORD, F. (1943) The Origin of Attic Comedy, Cambridge.MIÉ, F. (2013) “El uso de la dialéctica En la metodología científica de aristóteles. La alternativa empirista de aristóteles a la dicotomía entre coherentismo y fundacionismo. I” en Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 102.1, 93-122.MOMBELLO, E. (2008) “Sobre la doctrina de los ἐἐἐἐμἐἐἐ a partir de APo. 72a14-18” en Ordia Prima VII, Córdoba, p. 39-103.NUSSBAUM, M. C. (1982) “Saving Aristotle’s Appearances” en M. Schofield, M. y _______.Language and Logos: Studies in Ancient Greek Philosophy, Cambridge, 267-293.OWEN, G.E.L. (1967) “Tithenai ta Phainomena.” en Moravcsik, J.M.E. (ed.) Aristotle: A Collection of Critical Essays, New York, 167-190. _______. (1986) “Dialectic and Eristic in the Treatment of the Forms.” en M. Nussbaum (ed.) Logic, Science and Dialectic; Owen, G. E. L. Collected Papers in Greek Philosophy, Ithaka-N.Y., 221-238POLITIS, V. (2006) “Aporia and Searching in the Early Plato” en L. Judson y V. Karasmanis (eds.) Remembering Socrates. Philosophical Essays, Oxford.POSTE, E. M. A. (1866) Aristotle on Fallacies or the Sophistici Elenchi, with a translation and notes, London.ROBINSON, R. (1941) Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, Ithaka - N.Y.ROSS, W. D. (1924) Aristotle’s Metaphysics, A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, II vols., Oxford._______. (2004) Aristotelis topica et sophistici elenchi, OxfordSANTAS, G. X. (1983) Socrates. The Arguments of the Philosophers, London - N.Y.SCHREIBER, S. G. (2003) Aristotle on False Reasoning. Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations, New York.TARRANT, H. (2006) “Socratic Method and Socratic Truth” en S. Ahbel-Rappe, y R. Kamtekar (eds.) A Companion to Socrates, Malden-Oxford-Victoria, 254-272.TOUZZO, T. M. (2011) Plato’s Charmides, Positive Elenchus in a “Socratic” Dialogue, Cambridge.VAN EEMEREN, F. y GROOTENDORST, R. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach, Cambridge.VLASTOS, G. (1992) Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher, Ithaka-N.Y._______. (1995) Socratic Studies, M. Burnyet (ed.), Cambridge.WALLIES, M. (1891) Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis Topicorum libros octo commentaria (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca II.ii), Berlín._______. (1898) Alexandri quod fertur [Miguel de Éfeso] in Aristotelis Sophisticos elenchos commentarium (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca II.iii), Berlín_______. (1899) Ammonii in Aristotelis Analyticorum priorum librum i commentarium (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca II.vi), Berlín.WALTON, D. (1998a), The New Dialectic, Toronto._______. (1998b) “Formal and Informal Logic” en E. Craig y L. Floridi (eds.) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, CD-ROM 1.0, London: Routledge_______. (2004) Relevance In Argumentation, Mahwah N.J. –London._______. (2007) Witness Testimony Evidence. Argumentation, Artificial Intelligence, and Law, Cambridge.WIELAND, W. (1991) “La crítica de Platón a la escritura y los límites de la comunicabilidad” en Méthexis IV, 19-37.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 Eduardo H. Mombello
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Dado o acesso público desta revista, os textos são de uso gratuito, com obrigatoriedade de reconhecimento da autoria original e da publicação inicial nesta revista. O conteúdo das publicações é de total e exclusiva responsabilidade dos autores.
1. Os autores autorizam a publicação do artigo na revista.
2. Os autores garantem que a contribuição é original, responsabilizando-se inteiramente por seu conteúdo em caso de eventual impugnação por parte de terceiros.
3. Os autores garantem que a contribuição que não está em processo de avaliação em outras revistas.
4. Os autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, sendo o trabalho licenciado sob a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. Os autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho on-line após a publicação na revista.
6. Os autores dos trabalhos aprovados autorizam a revista a, após a publicação, ceder seu conteúdo para reprodução em indexadores de conteúdo, bibliotecas virtuais e similares.
7. É reservado aos editores o direito de proceder ajustes textuais e de adequação do artigo às normas da publicação.
