Authors/Aristotle/priora/Liber 2/C24

Chapter 24

Greek	Latin	English
	(PL 64 0709A) CAPUT XXIV. De paradigmate, hoc est exemplo.	24
68b38 Παράδειγμα δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὅταν τῶι μέσωι τὸ ἄκρον ὑπάρχον δειχθῆι διὰ τοῦ ὁμοίου τῶι τρίτωι. δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ μέσον τῶι τρίτωι καὶ τὸ πρῶτον τῶι ὁμοίωι γνώριμον εἶναι ὑπάρχον. οἷον ἔστω τὸ Α κακόν, τὸ δὲ Β πρὸς ὁμόρους ἀναιρεῖσθαι ↵ πόλεμον, ἐφ᾽ ὧι δὲ Γ τὸ Ἀθηναίους πρὸς Θηβαίους, τὸ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ὧι Δ Θηβαίους πρὸς Φωκεῖς. ἐὰν οὖν βουλώμεθα δεῖξαι ὅτι τὸ Θηβαίοις πολεμεῖν κακόν ἐστι, ληπτέον ὅτι τὸ πρὸς τοὺς ὁμόρους πολεμεῖν κακόν. τούτου δὲ πίστις ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων, οἷον ὅτι Θηβαίοις ὁ πρὸς Φωκεῖς. ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ πρὸς τοὺς ὁμόρους κακόν, τὸ δὲ πρὸς Θηβαίους πρὸς ὁμόρους ἐστί, φανερὸν ὅτι τὸ πρὸς Θηβαίους πολεμεῖν κακόν.	(0709B) Exemplum autem est, quando medio extremum inesse ostenditur per id quod est simile tertio. Oportet autem et medium tertio, et primum simili notius esse, inesse. Ut sit A malum, B autem contra confines inferre bellum, in quo autem C Athenienses contra Thebanos, in quo autem D Thebanos contra Phocenses. Si ergo volumus ostendere quoniam Thebanis pugnare malum est, sumendum quoniam contra confines pugnare est malum, huius autem fides ex similibus, ut quoniam Thebanis contra Phocenses. Quoniam ergo contra confines malum, contra Thebanos autem contra confines est, manifestum quoniam contra Thebanos pugnare malum.	We have an ‘example’ when the major term is proved to belong to the middle by means of a term which resembles the third. It ought to be known both that the middle belongs to the third term, and that the first belongs to that which resembles the third. For example let A be evil, B making war against neighbours, C Athenians against Thebans, D Thebans against Phocians. If then we wish to prove that to fight with the Thebans is an evil, we must assume that to fight against neighbours is an evil. Evidence of this is obtained from similar cases, e.g. that the war against the Phocians was an evil to the Thebans. Since then to fight against neighbours is an evil, and to fight against the Thebans is to fight against neighbours, it is clear that to fight against the Thebans is an evil.
ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὸ Β τῶι Γ καὶ τῶι Δ ὑπάρχει, φανερόν (ἄμφω γάρ ἐστι πρὸς τοὺς ὁμόρους ἀναιρεῖσθαι πόλεμον), καὶ ὅτι τὸ Α τῶι Δ (Θηβαίοις γὰρ οὐ συνήνεγκεν ὁ πρὸς Φωκεῖς πόλεμοσ)· ὅτι δὲ τὸ Α τῶι Β ὑπάρχει, διὰ τοῦ Δ δειχθήσεται. τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον κἂν εἰ διὰ πλειόνων τῶν ὁμοίων ἡ πίστις γένοιτο τοῦ μέσου πρὸς τὸ ἄκρον.	(0709C) Quoniam ergo B C et D inest, manifestum, utrumque enim est contra confines inferre bellum, et quoniam A D, Thebanis enim non fuit utile contra Phocenses bellum. Quoniam autem A inest B, per D ostendetur, eodem autem modo et si per plura similia fides fiat medii ad extremum.	Now it is clear that B belongs to C and to D (for both are cases of making war upon one’s neighbours) and that A belongs to D (for the war against the Phocians did not turn out well for the Thebans): but that A belongs to B will be proved through D. Similarly if the belief in the relation of the middle term to the extreme should be produced by several similar cases.
φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι τὸ παράδει- γμά ἐστιν οὔτε ὡς μέρος πρὸς ὅλον οὔτε ὡς ὅλον πρὸς μέρος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς μέρος πρὸς μέρος, ὅταν ἄμφω μὲν ἦι ὑπὸ ταὐτό, γνώριμον δὲ θάτερον. καὶ διαφέρει τῆς ἐπαγωγῆς, ὅτι ἡ μὲν ἐξ ἁπάντων τῶν ἀτόμων τὸ ἄκρον ἐδείκνυεν ὑπάρχειν τῶι μέσωι καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄκρον οὐ συνῆπτε τὸν συλλογισμόν, τὸ δὲ καὶ συνάπτει καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἁπάντων δείκνυσιν.	Manifestum ergo quoniam exemplum est neque ut totum ad partem, neque ut pars ad totum, sed ut pars ad partem, quando ambo quidem insunt sub eodem, notum autem alterum. Et differt ab inductione, quoniam haec quidem ex omnibus individuis ostendebat inesse extremum medio, et ad extremum non copulabat syllogismum, hoc autem et copulat, et non ex omnibus ostendit.	Clearly then to argue by example is neither like reasoning from part to whole, nor like reasoning from whole to part, but rather reasoning from part to part, when both particulars are subordinate to the same term, and one of them is known. It differs from induction, because induction starting from all the particular cases proves (as we saw) that the major term belongs to the middle, and does not apply the syllogistic conclusion to the minor term, whereas argument by example does make this application and does not draw its proof from all the particular cases.