Hide browse bar Your current position in the text is marked in blue. Click anywhere in the line to jump to another position:
book:
Chapter Headings of Book I
Book II
Book III
Book IV
Book V
Chapter headings of Book VI
Book VII
Book VIII
BOOK IX
Book X
Book XI
Book XII
Book XIII
Chapter Headings of Book XIV
Book XV
Book XVI
Book XVII
Book XVIII
Book XIX
Book XX
Preface
BOOK I
Book II
Book III
BOOK IV
Book V
The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius: Book VI
BOOK VII
Book VIII
Book IX
Book X
BOOK XI
BOOK XII
Book XIII
Book XIV
Book XV
Book XVI
Book XVII
BOOK XVIII
Book XIX
Book XX
chapter:
section:
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
Table of Contents:
PLUTARCH, in the second book of his essay On Homer, 1 asserts that Epicurus made use of an incomplete, perverted and faulty syllogism, and he quotes Epicurus' own words: 2 “Death is nothing to us, for what is dissolved is without perception, and what is without perception is nothing to us.” “Now Epicurus,” says Plutarch, omitted what he ought to have stated as his major premise, that death is a dissolution of body and soul, and then, to prove something else, he goes on to use the very premise that he had omitted, as if it had been stated and conceded. But this syllogism," says Plutarch, “cannot advance, unless that premise be first presented.” [p. 149] What Plutarch wrote as to the form and sequence of a syllogism is true enough; for if you wish to argue and reason according to the teaching of the schools, you ought to say: “Death is the dissolution of soul and body; but what is dissolved is without perception; and what is without perception is nothing to us.” But we cannot suppose that Epicurus, being the man he was, omitted that part of the syllogism through ignorance, or that it was his intention to state a syllogism complete in all its members and limitations, as is done in the schools of the logicians; but since the separation of body and soul by death is self-evident, he of course did not think it necessary to call attention to what was perfectly obvious to everyone. For the same reason, too, he put the conclusion of the syllogism, not at the end, but at the beginning; for who does not see that this also was not due to inadvertence? In Plato too you will often find syllogisms in which the order prescribed in the schools is disregarded and inverted, with a kind of lofty disdain of criticism.
The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius. With An English Translation. John C. Rolfe. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1927.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.
show
Browse Bar
hide
References (2 total)
- Cross-references in general dictionaries to this page
(2):
- Lewis & Short, imperfectus
- Lewis & Short, prae-postĕrus
hide
Search
hideStable Identifiers
hide
Display Preferences