[1062a]
[1]
nor admit of any other similar
pair of opposites. Of such axioms although there is a proof ad
hominem, there is no absolute proof;because there is no principle more convincing
than the axiom itself on which to base an argument, whereas there must
be such a principle if there is to be absolute proof. But he who wants to convince
an opponent who makes opposite statements that he is wrong must obtain
from him an admission which shall be identical with the proposition
that the same thing cannot at one and the same time be and not be, but
shall seem not to be identical with it. This is the only method of
proof which can be used against one who maintains that opposite
statements can be truly made about the same subject.Now those who intend to join in
discussion must understand one another to some extent; for without
this how can there be any common discussion between them? Therefore
each of the terms which they use must be intelligible and signify
something; not several things, but one only; or if it signifies more
than one thing, it must be made clear to which of these the term is
applied.Now he who
says that A is and is not denies what he asserts, and therefore denies
that the term signifies what it does signify. But this is impossible.
Therefore if "to be so-and-so" has a definite meaning, the opposite
statement about the same subject cannot be true.
[20]
Again, if the
term has a definite significance and this is truly stated, it must of
necessity be so.1 But that
which of necessity is can never not be. Hence opposite statements
about the same subject cannot be true.Again, if the assertion is no more true than the negation, it will
be no more true to say "A is man" than to say "A is not man."2 But it
would also be admitted that it is more or at least not less true to
say that a man is not a horse than to say that he is not a man; and
therefore, since it was assumed that opposite statements are equally
true, it will be true to say that the same person is also a horse. It
follows therefore, that the same person is a man and a horse, or any
other animal. Thus, although there is no absolute proof of
these axioms, there is an ad hominem proof where one's opponent makes
these assumptions.3 Perhaps even
Heraclitus himself, if he had been questioned on these lines, would
have been compelled to admit that opposite statements can never be
true of the same subjects; as it is, he adopted this theory through
ignorance of what his doctrine implied.In general,4 if what he says is true, not even this
statement itself
1 sect. 6=Aristot. Met. 4.4.14-16.
2 With this section cf. Aristot. Met. 4.4.26-30.
3 sect. 8=Aristot. Met. 4.3.10.
4 sect. 9-11=Aristot. Met. 4.4.31.
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.