It is no true distinction between arguments which some people draw when they say that some arguments are directed against the expression, and others against the thought expressed: for it is absurd to suppose that some arguments are directed against the expression and others against the thought, and that they are not the same.For what is failure to direct an argument against the thought except what occurs whenever a man does not in using the expression think it to be used in his question in the same sense in which the person questioned granted it? And this is the same thing as to direct the argument against the expression.On the other hand, it is directed against the thought whenever a man uses the expression in the same sense which the answerer had in mind when he granted it.If now any (i.e.both the questioner and the person questioned), in dealing with an expression with more than one meaning, were to suppose it to have one meaning-as e.g.it may be that 'Being' and 'One' have many meanings, and yet both the answerer answers and the questioner puts his question supposing it to be one, and the argument is to the effect that 'All things are one'-will this discussion be directed any more against the expression than against the thought of the person questioned? If, on the other hand, one of them supposes the expression to have many meanings, it is clear that such a discussion will not be directed against the thought.Such being the meanings of the phrases in question, they clearly cannot describe two separate classes of argument.For, in the first place, it is possible for any such argument as bears more than one meaning to be directed against the expression and against the thought, and next it is possible for any argument whatsoever; for the fact of being directed against the thought consists not in the nature of the argument, but in the special attitude of the answerer towards the points he concedes.Next, all of them may be directed to the expression.For 'to be directed against the expression' means in this doctrine 'not to be directed against the thought'.For if not all are directed against either expression or thought, there will be certain other arguments directed neither against the expression nor against the thought, whereas they say that all must be one or the other, and divide them all as directed either against the expression or against the thought, while others (they say) there are none.But in point of fact those that depend on mere expression are only a branch of those syllogisms that depend on a multiplicity of meanings.For the absurd statement has actually been made that the description 'dependent on mere expression' describes all the arguments that depend on language: whereas some of these are fallacies not because the answerer adopts a particular attitude towards them, but because the argument itself involves the asking of a question such as bears more than one meaning.
同类推荐
热门推荐
人生的智慧(西方经典文库系列)
1850年,时年62岁的大叔完成了一生中最后的巨著《附录与补遗》,这部著作给大叔带来了世界性声誉,结束了他几十年的不得志和默默无闻。《人生的智慧》即摘自此书,但其实也独立成书。在阿图尔·叔本华著的《人生的智慧(典藏版)西方经典文库系列》中,大叔放弃他一贯坚持的唯意志论的悲观哲学,而采用优雅的文体、简洁的笔触阐述自己对人生的看法。在书中,大叔完全从世俗的角度探讨了诸如成功、金钱、名利、健康,以及为人处世、接物待人等应遵循的原则。这些问题与我们日常生活最为接近,因而很适合大众阅读。大叔采用平易近人的论述方式,用深刻的思想利剑刺穿那繁杂纷纭、百口莫辩的复杂世俗和人间世惰,使问题变得清晰、简明、透彻。