Transcendental Arguments, Aristotle & Retorsion -Jay Dyer
Summary
TLDRLe script discute de l'argument de rétorsion d'Aristote dans le livre IV de la Métaphysique, où il soutient que rejeter le principe de non-contradiction entraînerait une contradiction dans l'argumentation. L'auteur suggère que cet argument peut être appliqué à Dieu, en disant qu'Il est plus fondamental que le principe de non-contradiction. Le texte explore également l'idée que certaines vérités, comme le principe d'identité, ne peuvent être prouvées mais sont nécessaires pour la logique et le discours, et que l'absence de preuve pour ces principes ne signifie pas leur invalidité.
Takeaways
- 📚 Aristote dans son livre de la Métaphysique IV discute de la loi de non-contradiction et utilise un argument de réduction pour montrer que son rejet serait auto-contradictoire.
- 🤔 L'argument d'Aristote est appliqué à la loi de non-contradiction, mais on suggère qu'il pourrait également s'appliquer à Dieu en disant que Dieu est plus fondamental que cette loi logique.
- 🧐 Aristote soutient qu'il est impossible que tout ait une preuve, car cela conduirait à une infinité de preuves et rendrait la preuve impossible.
- 📖 Il est question que certaines choses sont tellement évidentes qu'elles ne nécessitent pas de preuve, comme la loi de non-contradiction.
- 🤨 Aristote critique l'idée que l'on pourrait prouver la loi de non-contradiction, car cela impliquerait une contradiction performative si quelqu'un la nie.
- 👨🏫 L'argument de réduction est utilisé pour montrer que la négation de certaines lois logiques rendrait le discours et la logique impossibles.
- 💬 Aristote utilise l'exemple de l'homme comme un animal à deux pattes pour illustrer comment la signification doit être unique pour permettre une discussion significative.
- 🚫 Il est impossible que la même chose soit et ne soit pas en même temps, sauf par équivoque, ce qui est une critique de ceux qui pensent que les mots et les prédicats pourraient se contredire.
- 📖 L'argument de réduction est également utilisé par d'autres philosophes, comme Jean Damascène, qui utilise une forme d'argumentation similaire dans 'La Fontaine de la Connaissance'.
- 🔄 L'argument de réduction est une forme d'argumentation qui montre que nier des principes fondamentaux est contradictoire et rendrait la communication impossible.
Q & A
Quel est l'argument retorsion d'Aristote dans le livre 4 de la Métaphysique?
-Aristote utilise l'argument retorsion pour répondre à ceux qui rejettent le principe de non-contradiction. Il soutient que si quelqu'un rejette ce principe, il doit l'utiliser pour le rejeter, ce qui est auto-contradictoire.
Comment Aristote défend-il le principe de non-contradiction?
-Aristote soutient que le principe de non-contradiction est le plus sûr de tous les principes et qu'il est impossible de prouver tout, car cela mènerait à une régression infinie. Il utilise l'argument retorsion pour montrer que le rejet de ce principe conduit à l'absurdité.
Quelle est la position d'Aristote sur la nécessité de prouver les principes fondamentaux?
-Aristote pense qu'il n'y a pas besoin de preuve pour les principes fondamentaux comme le principe de non-contradiction, car demander une preuve pour tout mènerait à une régression infinie et rendrait la preuve impossible.
Comment Aristote distingue-t-il entre une preuve et une réputation?
-Aristote considère que la preuve par réputation est différente d'une preuve simple. La preuve par réputation semble poser la question fondamentale, tandis que la réputation provient d'une discussion provoquée par quelqu'un d'autre, ce qui ne constitue pas une preuve mais une réputation.
Quelle est la signification du terme 'homme' selon Aristote?
-Aristote soutient qu'il est impossible que le terme 'homme' ait plusieurs significations, car cela rendrait impossible le discours. Il soutient que 'homme' a une signification déterminée, comme 'animal à deux pieds'.
Comment Aristote aborde-t-il l'idée d'une infinité de significations pour un terme?
-Aristote soutient que si un terme avait un nombre infini de significations, cela annulerait le sens même du terme et rendrait le discours impossible, car il n'y aurait pas de signification unique pour communiquer.
Quelle est la relation entre le principe de non-contradiction et la possibilité de discours selon Aristote?
-Aristote soutient que le principe de non-contradiction est essentiel pour le discours, car si le même terme pouvait avoir plusieurs significations contradictoires, cela rendrait le discours et la communication impossibles.
Comment Aristote utilise-t-il l'argument retorsion pour défendre le principe d'identité?
-Aristote utilise l'argument retorsion pour montrer que si l'on nie le principe d'identité, cela mènerait à l'absurdité et rendrait le discours et la logique impossibles, car on ne pourrait plus prédire ou nier quelque chose de manière cohérente.
Quelle est la différence entre les arguments retorsion et les arguments transcendantaux?
-L'argument retorsion est une méthode philosophique qui montre que nier une thèse conduit à une incohérence performative, tandis que l'argument transcendantal soutient que certaines choses sont nécessaires pour la possibilité même de la connaissance ou de l'expérience.
Comment les arguments retorsion sont-ils utilisés dans la tradition philosophique?
-Les arguments retorsion sont utilisés depuis Aristote et sont présents dans la tradition philosophique, y compris dans les dialogues de Platon et dans les écrits de John Damascus, pour montrer l'incohérence de nier des principes fondamentaux.
Outlines
📚 Aristote et la loi de non-contradiction
Dans le livre IV de la Métaphysique d'Aristote, il aborde la question de ce qui se passe si quelqu'un nie la loi de non-contradiction. Aristote utilise un argument de réduction à l'absurde, suggérant que si l'on rejette cette loi, on l'utilise pour la critiquer, ce qui serait auto-contradictoire. Il soutient que Dieu est plus fondamental que la loi de non-contradiction et que l'argument de réduction peut être appliqué à Dieu. Il critique également ceux qui exigent une preuve de la loi de non-contradiction, affirmant qu'il est impossible que tout ait une preuve, car cela mènerait à une régression infinie. Aristote soutient que certaines choses sont tellement évidentes qu'elles ne nécessitent pas de preuve, et il utilise l'argument de réputation pour montrer que la discussion est possible seulement si l'interlocuteur a une position significative à défendre.
🔍 L'argument de réduction et la loi d'identité
Le deuxième paragraphe explore l'impossibilité d'avoir un discours si l'on nie l'unicité du sens des mots. Aristote soutient que si le mot 'homme' pouvait avoir plusieurs significations, cela mènerait à l'absurde où tout serait un, ce qui rendrait la prédication et la signification impossibles. Il utilise un argument de réduction pour soutenir la loi d'identité et la loi de non-contradiction, en montrant que nier ces principes rendrait le langage et la logique impossibles. Il souligne que l'argument de réduction est une critique interne, en montrant que ceux qui nient des principes fondamentaux utilisent ces principes pour faire leurs arguments, ce qui est auto-contradictoire. L'auteur mentionne également l'utilisation de cet argument par d'autres philosophes, y compris John Damascus, et comment cela se rapporte à l'argument transcendantal pour Dieu.
🗣️ L'incohérence performative dans les arguments philosophiques
Le troisième paragraphe discute de l'incohérence performative dans les arguments philosophiques, où l'acte d'assertion est en contradiction avec le contenu de l'assertion. Par exemple, si quelqu'un prétend qu'il n'y a pas d'assertions, cela crée une incohérence entre l'acte d'assertion (dire qu'il n'y a pas d'assertions) et le contenu de l'assertion (l'existence d'une assertion). L'auteur explique que, bien que cette incohérence ne soit pas strictement logique, elle montre une contradiction analogue qui rend l'argument auto-contradictoire. Il compare cette approche à celle utilisée par Aristote et John Damascus, soulignant que l'argument de réduction est une forme d'argumentation transcendantale utilisée pour montrer l'incohérence de nier des principes fondamentaux.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Métaphysique
💡Loi de non-contradiction
💡Argument de réduction
💡Tradition aristotélicienne
💡Principe
💡Démonstration
💡Rétorsion
💡Argument transcendantal
💡Auto-contradiction
💡Philosophie
Highlights
Aristotle's retorsion argument against rejecting the law of non-contradiction.
The application of reductio ad absurdum to the law of non-contradiction in Metaphysics Book 4.
Aristotle's view that rejecting the law of non-contradiction would be self-refuting.
The argument that God is more fundamental than the law of non-contradiction.
The concept that denying foundational laws of logic leads to absurdity.
Aristotle's assertion that the law of non-contradiction is the most certain of all principles.
The idea that requiring proof for everything leads to an infinite regress.
Aristotle's critique of those who demand proof for basic principles due to a lack of education.
The distinction between proof by reputation and simple proof in philosophical argumentation.
The necessity of an opponent making a statement for a meaningful argument.
Aristotle's point that the term 'to be' has a definite meaning, implying the law of identity.
The argument that if 'man' had multiple meanings, discourse would be impossible.
The impossibility of the same thing being and not being, except by equivocation.
The use of reductio ad absurdum to defend the law of identity.
The philosophical procedure of retorsion as used by Aristotle and its relevance to modern philosophy.
The historical use of retorsion in the Aristotelian tradition and its connection to transcendental arguments.
John Damascus' use of retorsion in 'The Fountain of Knowledge'.
The performative inconsistency in denying assertions, as illustrated by John Damascus.
The analogical inconsistency between the act of asserting and the content of the assertion.
Transcripts
in Aristotle metaphysics book 4 when
he's asked about what happens if
somebody says I don't believe in the law
of non-contradiction he offers a kind of
retorsion argument a reductio argument
by saying that well if you rejected the
law of non-contradiction you would be
using it to argue against it and that
would be self-refuting okay this is
Aristotle all you idiot Thomas out there
he's making the type of argument that I
make we're actually in the to Mystic
tradition I mean excuse me the aristan
tradition so to speak now Aristotle
doesn't apply these types of arguments
to God but he's applying this argument
of rorion here to the law of
non-contradiction and we do the same
type of move we're just simply saying
that actually God is more fundamental
than even the law of non-contradiction
and so I'm going take I'm taking that
type of argument and I'm saying that
let's apply that to God if we can use
the uh a transcendental type of argument
for a law of logic why wouldn't we be
able to use it for
God anyway so that's the move that we're
making here 106a that's what we need
right
here so this is where Aristotle I think
is arguing what if somebody says uh I
don't believe in proofs
uh so he's talking about it is it's
possible for example for something to be
a not be at the same
time many even of the physicists adopt
this Theory but we have just assumed it
is impossible at once to be and to not
be and by this means we have proven that
this is the most certain of all
principles some indeed demand to have a
law proven but this is because they lack
education where it shows that educa lack
of Education to not know of what we
should require proof and what we should
not so Aros is kind of arguing that
there's not going to be demonstrable
proof of the law of noncontradiction or
these basic principles for it is quite
impossible that everything should have a
proof If we required a proof of
everything then the process would go on
into
infinity even so there would be no proof
If on the other hand there were some
things of which no proof was needed they
cannot say what principle they think
would be more self-evident even in the
case of this law
how what law of identity I think what we
talking about we cannot demonstrate the
impossibility or law of
non-contradiction one of the two we
cannot
demonstrate the impossibility by
reputation only if our opponent makes
some statement if he makes no statement
it is absurd to seek for an argument
against a person who has no arguments of
his own in so far as he has none for
such a person is really no better than a
vegetable and I say by proof of
reputation that differs that by
reputation differs from simple proof in
that he who attempts to prove might seem
seem to beg the fundamental question
whereas if discussion is provoked thus
by someone else reputation and not proof
will be the result the starting point
for all such discussions is not the
claim that he should State something is
or is not so because this might be
supposed to be begging the question but
that he should say something significant
both to himself and to another this is
essential if any argument is to follow
for otherwise such a person cannot
either cannot reason either with himself
or with
another and if this is granted
demonstration will be possible for there
will be something already defined but
the person responsible is not he who
demonstrates but he who
acquiesces I'm going skip down thus in
the first place it is obvious that at
any rate it is true that the term to be
or to not to be has a definite meaning
so that not everything can be so and not
so again if a man has a meaning let this
be two-footed
animal okay so uh and
then it's the next section 20
105
1006
B okay yeah this is it I think 106
for instance it might be said that man
has not one meaning but several of one
of which is that the formula of a
two-footed animal there might be another
formula as well if we limited them a
number for a particular name not be
assigned each uh uh if each for the
formula if on the other hand it be said
that man has an infinite number of
meanings
then obviously there could be no
discourse for to have no not to have one
meaning is to have no meaning so he's
doing reductio here now it is impossible
that being man should have the same
meaning as not being man that is if man
is uh merely predicable of one subject
but has one meaning for you not identify
having one meaning with being predicable
of one subject in this case cultured
white and man would also have one
meaning and so all things would be one
and thus he's saying that you couldn't
have predication
it would be impossible for the same
thing to be and to not be except by
equivocation so he's arguing here that
if you were to say that words and
predicates uh could cancel each other
out then meaning would no longer be
possible and so this is a kind of
negative argument a kind of reductio
argument for the law of identity the law
of non-contradiction
so it's an internal critique you could
say by doing this kind of a move um it's
not the transcendental argument for God
but is the same type of a move the same
type of argument where we're saying
that if you took this line it would lead
to absurdity if you denied something
like a first principle or a foundational
law of logic it would lead to absurdity
and would make logic impossible
therefore the guy who argues against the
laws of logic is actually assuming them
to do
so this is a
a great Point here about
retorsion how far does rorion reach and
what does it prove rorion is a
philosophical procedure whereby one
attempts to establish a thesis by
uncovering an a performative
inconsistency in anyone who denies it it
is as old as Aristotle and has been
followed and used by philosophers as
diverse as transcendental Toms now you
might think that wait a minute if you're
a transcendental argument proponent does
that mean you're in line with
transcendal toist this just simply means
that in the modern era there have been
Toms who have actually yes adopted
Believe It or Not transcendental
arguments and that's because as you hear
me point out all the time transal
argumentation is not new to uh Calvin
it's not new to uh van till or bonson
it's a principle that goes back to
Aristotle I just read you the section of
metaphysics book 4 of Aristotle where
it's referenced I think it comes up in
other places too um the idea I think is
also present in some of the dialogue
some presuppositional ideas are also
present in the dialogues of
Plato and so uh as this philosophical
blog here is
noting
um it's not new right John Damascus in
book one of The Fountain of Knowledge
utilizes the same idea uh the same type
of argument in fact I've actually I
forgot I actually have Fountain of
Knowledge pulled up
and if I remember it's the first
chapter yeah so or it's actually I think
the here early on in chapter
3 and he's saying he's talking about
what is philosophy for don't know the
for those that don't know John deasus
wrote a famous introductory text that's
very
Aristotelian uh on uh introducing people
to the philosophical Concepts that are
used in theological literature it's
called the Fountain of knowled know uh
and he says there are some people
whoever who have endeavored to do away
entirely with
philosophy asserting that it does not
exists or that there's no such thing as
knowledge or
perception we would answer them by
asking how is it you say that there's no
philosophy knowledge or perception do
you know or perceive that there is no
knowledge philosophy or perception or is
it by not knowing or perceiving it if
you perceive it then you have knowledge
and perception but if it is by you're
not knowing it then no one will believe
you because you're basically saying you
have no knowledge this is a
transcendental type of argument a
reductio retorsion argument thus as you
can see retorsion as is pointed out here
is
used in the Aristotelian
tradition and thus why there would be
transcendental toist but to be very
clear here there are not to my knowledge
any Toms who use the transcendental
argument for God
you see so that's the difference here
but transcendental arguments contrary to
these idiots who don't know anything
don't even know that their own tradition
has people using transcendental
arguments and that it goes back to
Aristotle and John
Damascus it's a form that you see here
in retorsion what John Damascus is doing
right here is
rorion it's outlined here in this
well-known Catholic philosophy blog
proofs by retorsion have this form
proposition p is such that anyone who
denies it falls into the performative
inconsistency therefore Ergo p is true
suppose that a person says that there
are no assertions this would be an a
performative inconsistency the
propositional content of the speech Act
is inconsistent with the performance
there are no assertions is the
propositional content
of assert you're asserting that is the
proposition thus the speech act in this
case is the performance the
inconsistency is not strictly
logical but strictly logical
inconsistency obtains between
propositions and thus the performance as
such is not a proposition such as
asserting performances belong to the
category of events and not a proposition
and yet it is clear that there is some
sort of analog inconsistency going on
here some sort of analog of
contradiction the content asserted is
falsified by the action of asserting it
this is everything that we do all the
time when we do the transcendental
argument against people
who are atheists or materialists or
whatever so again for the slow boys out
there I am not saying that this is the
transcendental argument for God it is a
form of argument that shows that is
inconsistent and contradictory to deny
things that you're
using does everybody see that do you see
that what this guy right here who I
assume is
a Catholic I don't know what he is
blogger Catholic philosophy blogger
here it's no different than what's being
said right here in John Damascus and
that's basically the same thing that was
uh being done and said in the arist the
Aristotle passage that we read read from
metaphysics book 4
浏览更多相关视频
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)