Are the Fallacies Topoi?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Book chapter › Research › peer-review

Standard

Are the Fallacies Topoi? / Ebbesen, Sten.

Fallacies in the Arabic, Byzantine, Hebrew and Latin Traditions. ed. / Laurent Cesalli; Leone Gazziero; C. Manekin; S. Rahman; Tony Street; Michaele Trizio. Turnhout : Brepols Academic Publishers, 2024. p. 25-43.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Book chapter › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Ebbesen, S 2024, Are the Fallacies Topoi? in L Cesalli, L Gazziero, C Manekin, S Rahman, T Street & M Trizio (eds), Fallacies in the Arabic, Byzantine, Hebrew and Latin Traditions. Brepols Academic Publishers, Turnhout, pp. 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1484/M.ADARG-EB.5.137515

APA

Ebbesen, S. (2024). Are the Fallacies Topoi? In L. Cesalli, L. Gazziero, C. Manekin, S. Rahman, T. Street, & M. Trizio (Eds.), Fallacies in the Arabic, Byzantine, Hebrew and Latin Traditions (pp. 25-43). Brepols Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1484/M.ADARG-EB.5.137515

Vancouver

Ebbesen S. Are the Fallacies Topoi? In Cesalli L, Gazziero L, Manekin C, Rahman S, Street T, Trizio M, editors, Fallacies in the Arabic, Byzantine, Hebrew and Latin Traditions. Turnhout: Brepols Academic Publishers. 2024. p. 25-43 https://doi.org/10.1484/M.ADARG-EB.5.137515

Author

Ebbesen, Sten. / Are the Fallacies Topoi?. Fallacies in the Arabic, Byzantine, Hebrew and Latin Traditions. editor / Laurent Cesalli ; Leone Gazziero ; C. Manekin ; S. Rahman ; Tony Street ; Michaele Trizio. Turnhout : Brepols Academic Publishers, 2024. pp. 25-43

Bibtex

@inbook{dbebc86e60a245279563e8d3bd1ac174,
title = "Are the Fallacies Topoi?",
abstract = "By general agreement, Aristotle{\textquoteright}s Sophistical Refutations (Soph. el.) is a sort of companion or appendix to the Topics. This raises the question whether its thirteen types of fallacious refutation (traditionally called “the thirteen fallacies”) are as many topoi. In the Latin Middle Ages this was a standard assumption, and for the medievals this had consequences for the way they interpreted the Soph. el. Modern commentators have shown little interest in the question. The essay will first examine the textual evidence for holding that Aristotle considered the fallacies topoi. The evidence is less clear than appears from modern editions, but it will be concluded that Aristotle did, indeed, think of the fallacies as topoi. Next, it will be argued that this being presupposed, we ought to consider re-introducing the medieval notion of sophistical pseudo-maxims corresponding to the genuine dialectical maxims of the Topics.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, filosofihistorie",
author = "Sten Ebbesen",
year = "2024",
doi = "10.1484/M.ADARG-EB.5.137515",
language = "English",
isbn = "9782503608198",
pages = "25--43",
editor = "Laurent Cesalli and Leone Gazziero and C. Manekin and S. Rahman and Tony Street and Michaele Trizio",
booktitle = "Fallacies in the Arabic, Byzantine, Hebrew and Latin Traditions",
publisher = "Brepols Academic Publishers",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - Are the Fallacies Topoi?

AU - Ebbesen, Sten

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - By general agreement, Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations (Soph. el.) is a sort of companion or appendix to the Topics. This raises the question whether its thirteen types of fallacious refutation (traditionally called “the thirteen fallacies”) are as many topoi. In the Latin Middle Ages this was a standard assumption, and for the medievals this had consequences for the way they interpreted the Soph. el. Modern commentators have shown little interest in the question. The essay will first examine the textual evidence for holding that Aristotle considered the fallacies topoi. The evidence is less clear than appears from modern editions, but it will be concluded that Aristotle did, indeed, think of the fallacies as topoi. Next, it will be argued that this being presupposed, we ought to consider re-introducing the medieval notion of sophistical pseudo-maxims corresponding to the genuine dialectical maxims of the Topics.

AB - By general agreement, Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations (Soph. el.) is a sort of companion or appendix to the Topics. This raises the question whether its thirteen types of fallacious refutation (traditionally called “the thirteen fallacies”) are as many topoi. In the Latin Middle Ages this was a standard assumption, and for the medievals this had consequences for the way they interpreted the Soph. el. Modern commentators have shown little interest in the question. The essay will first examine the textual evidence for holding that Aristotle considered the fallacies topoi. The evidence is less clear than appears from modern editions, but it will be concluded that Aristotle did, indeed, think of the fallacies as topoi. Next, it will be argued that this being presupposed, we ought to consider re-introducing the medieval notion of sophistical pseudo-maxims corresponding to the genuine dialectical maxims of the Topics.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - filosofihistorie

U2 - 10.1484/M.ADARG-EB.5.137515

DO - 10.1484/M.ADARG-EB.5.137515

M3 - Book chapter

SN - 9782503608198

SP - 25

EP - 43

BT - Fallacies in the Arabic, Byzantine, Hebrew and Latin Traditions

A2 - Cesalli, Laurent

A2 - Gazziero, Leone

A2 - Manekin, C.

A2 - Rahman, S.

A2 - Street, Tony

A2 - Trizio, Michaele

PB - Brepols Academic Publishers

CY - Turnhout

ER -

ID: 387616684