Conation

Also, the putting of several questions, even though the position against which one is arguing be quite definite, and the claim that he shall say only what he thinks, create abundant opportunity for drawing him into paradox or fallacy.

And also, whether to any of these questions he replies quotes yes or replies quotes no of leading him on to statements against which one is well off for a line of attack nowadays however men are less able to play foul by these means than they were formerly for people rejoin with the question quote what has that to do with the original subject close quote it is too an elementary rule for eliciting some fallacy or paradox that one should never put a controversial question straight away but say that one puts it from the wish for information for the process of inquiry thus invited gives room for an attack a rule specially appropriate for showing up a fallacy is the sophistic rule that one should draw the answerer on to the kind of statements against which one is well supplied with arguments this can be done both properly and improperly as was said before again to draw a paradoxical statement look and see to what school of philosophers the person arguing with you belongs and then question him as to some point wherein their doctrine is paradoxical to most people for with every school there is some point of that kind it is an elementary rule in these matters to have a collection of the special quotes theses of the various schools among your propositions the solution recommended as appropriate here too is to point out that the paradox does not come about because of the argument whereas this is what his opponent always really wants moreover argue from men's wishes and their professed opinions for people do not wish the same things as they say they wish they say what will look best whereas they wish what appears to be to their interest e g they say that a man ought to die nobly rather than to live in pleasure and to live in honest poverty rather than in dishonorable riches but they wish the opposite accordingly a man who speaks according to his wishes must be led into stating the professed opinions of people while he who speaks according to these must be led into admitting those that people keep hidden away for in either case they are bound to introduce a paradox for they will speak contrary either to men's professed or to their hidden opinions the widest range of commonplace argument for leading men into paradoxical statement is that which depends on the standards of nature and of the law it is so that both callicles is drawn as arguing in the gorgias and that all the men of old suppose the result to come about for nature they said and law are opposites and justice is a fine thing by a legal standard but not by that of nature accordingly they said the man whose statement agrees with the standard of nature you should meet by the standard of the law but the man who agrees with the law by leading him to the facts of nature for in both ways paradoxical statements may be committed in their view the standard of nature was the truth while that of the law was the opinion held by the majority so that it is clear that they too used to try either to refute the answerer or to make him make paradoxical statements just as the men of today do as well some questions are such that in both forms the answer is paradoxical e g quote ought one to obey the wise or one's father close quote and quote ought one to do what is expedient or what is just close quote and quote is it preferable to suffer injustice or to do an injury close quote you should lead people then into views opposite to the majority and to the philosophers if anyone speaks as to the expert reasoners lead him into opposition to the majority while if he speaks as to the majority then into opposition to the reasoners for some say that of necessity the happy man is just whereas it is paradoxical to the many that a king should not be happy to lead a man into paradoxes of this sort is the same as to lead him into the opposition of the standards of nature and law for the law represents the opinion of the majority whereas philosophers speak according to the standard of nature and the truth end of chapter twelve recording in memory of mitchell edwards chapter thirteen of de sophisticus elenchus by aristotle translated by w a pickard cambridge this librivox recording is in the public domain recording by jeffrey edwards chapter thirteen paradoxes then you should seek to elicit by means of these commonplace rules now as for making anyone babble we have already said what we mean by quote to babble close quote this is the object in view in all arguments of the following kind if it is all the same to state a term and to state its definition the quotes double and quote double of half close quote are the same if then quotes double be the quote double of half close quote it will be the quote double of half of half close quote and if instead of quotes double quote double of half close quote be again put then the same expression will be repeated three times quote double of half of half of half close quote Also, Desire is of the pleasant, isn't it? But desire is conation for the pleasant.

Accordingly, Desire is Conation for the pleasant for the pleasant.

All arguments of this kind occur in dealing 1.

With any relative terms which not only have relative genera, but are also themselves relative, and are rendered in relation to one and the same thing, as e.g. Conation is conation for something, and desire is desire of something, and double is double of something, i.e. double of half.

Also in dealing 2.

With any terms which, though they be not relative terms at all, yet have their substance, viz.