Suda On Line menu Search

Search results for epsilon,1923 in Adler number:
Greek display:    

Headword: Epagôgê
Adler number: epsilon,1923
Translated headword: induction; sequence-formation
Vetting Status: high
Induction is an argument that, by means of certain true things,[1]properly infers a truth similar to itself. There are two modes of induction: the one proceeding by contrariety and the one proceeding by reciprocal implication. Now the mode of induction proceeding by contrariety is the one out of which in every answer the contrary to what is asked will be implied. For example, my father is either different from or the same as your father. Thus if your father is different from my father, while being different from a father, he would not be a father. But if he is the same as my father, in being the same as my father, he would be my father. Again: if man is not an animal, he would be either a stone or a piece of wood. But he is not a stone nor a piece of wood, for he is animated and is able to move by himself. In fact, he is an animal. But if he is an animal, and both a dog and an ox are animals, man would be an animal as well, that is to say, he would be a dog and an ox. This is the mode of induction proceeding by contrariety and dispute, the refuting mode. The mode proceeding by reciprocal implication is double: the one which proves by inquiring the particular [conclusion] through the particular.[2] The first one is rhetorical, the second one dialectical. For instance, in the first one it is investigated whether this person killed somebody; the proof that he did is that he was opportunely found with stains of blood on him. And this mode of induction is rhetorical, since rhetoric also deals with particulars and is not concerned with universals. For it inquires not about the just itself but about the particular just acts. The other mode is dialectical, the one where the universal is proved before by means of particulars. For example, whether the soul is immortal, and whether living people come from dead people. This is proved in On the Soul by means of a certain universal [proposition], because the contraries come out of the contraries. And the universal itself is constructed out of certain particular existing things: to sleep comes from waking up and waking up from sleeping, the bigger from the smaller, and the smaller from the bigger.
From the Art of Tactics: e)pagwgh/ again[3] is when a rank is subordinated to another rank. For example, when one tetrarchy leads and the other tetrarchies are subordinated to it, or when the command of a body of mercenaries leads and the other commands of mercenaries follow close upon and, in general, when a body of troops pursues in march another body of troops. As a result the commanders of the succeeding body attach themselves to the back-markers of the body which is leading the way.
From the Topics:[4] induction and deduction (sullogismo/s) are instruments of the dialectical arguments, according to which practice (or training) arises. And the mode of proof[5] by means of the universal is deductive, while the mode of proof by means of the things subordinated to the universal is inductive. The enthymeme is subordinated to deduction and the proof from example[6] is subordinated to induction. And the enthymeme is a rhetorical deduction, the proof from example a rhetorical induction. And induction is the progress by means of particulars up to the universals.[7] Therefore, those who maintain that induction is an argument which proceeds from the similar to the similar do not speak soundly. For the universal is not similar to what is subordinated to it. And induction is mostly for the sake of the mode of proof proper of the universal. But the argument proceeding from the similar to the similar would rather mean the proof from example, for an induction is the argument which proves and confirms the universal by means of particulars. In effect, the one who proves by means of universals that the best among everyone is he who knows because of capturing that the best pilot is the one who has knowledge and, likewise the best charioteer, general, and also the best physician, geometer, musician, carpenter, that person yields the mode of proof by means of induction due to the fact that the one who knows is the best one among everyone.[8]
Greek Original:
Epagôgê: epagôgê esti logos dia tinôn alêthôn to homoion hautôi alêthes oikeiôs epipherôn. duo de tês epagôgês eisi tropoi, ho te kat' enantiôsin kai ho ek tês akolouthias. ho men oun kat' enantiôsin estin ex hou tôi erôtômenôi peri pasan apokrisin akolouthêsei to enantion: hoion, ho emos patêr tôi sôi patri êtoi heteros estin ê autos. ei men oun heteros estin tou emou patros ho sos patêr, patros heteros ôn ouk an eiê patêr: ei de ho autos esti tôi emôi patri, ho autos ôn tôi emôi patri ho emos an eiê patêr. kai palin, ei mê zôion estin ho anthrôpos, lithos an eiê ê xulon. ouk esti de lithos ê xulon empsuchos gar esti kai ex hautou kineitai. zôion gar estin. ei de zôion esti, zôion de kai ho kuôn kai ho bous, eiê an kai ho anthrôpos zôion, kai kuôn kai bous. kai houtos men ho tês epagôgês kat' enantiôsin kai machên tropos ho dielenchôn. ho de tês akolouthias esti diplous: ho men to epi merous zêtoumenon dia tou epi merous apodeiknus. kai estin ho men proteros rhêtorikos, ho de deuteros dialektikos. hoion, en tôi proterôi zêteitai, ei hode apekteinen. apodeixis to heurêsthai auton kat' ekeinon ton kairon hêimagmenon. rhêtorikos de esti ho tropos tês epagôgês houtos: epeidê kai hê rhêtorikê peri ta epi merous, ou ta katholou tên pragmateian echei. zêtei gar ou peri autou tou dikaiou, alla tôn epi merous dikaiôn. ho de heteros esti dialektikos, proapodeichthentos tou katholou dia tôn epi merous. hoion zêteitai, ei hê psuchê athanatos, kai ei ek tôn tethneôtôn hoi zôntes: hoper apodeiknutai en tôi peri psuchês dia tinos katholikou, hoti ek tôn enantiôn ta enantia. kai auto de to katholou kataskeuazetai ek tinôn ontôn epi merous, hoti to katheudein ek tou egrêgorenai kai anapalin, kai to meizon ek tou mikroterou kai anapalin. ek tôn Taktikôn. Epagôgê palin estin, hotan tagma tagmati hupotassêtai, hoion tetrarchias hêgoumenês hai loipai tetrarchiai hupotassôntai, ê xenagias hêgoumenês hai loipai xenagiai epakolouthousi, kai katholou, hotan suntagma suntagmati en poreiai hepêtai, hôste tois tou proêgoumenou suntagmatos ouragois tous tou hexês suntagmatos hêgemonas sunaptein. ek tôn Topikôn. hoti hê epagôgê kai ho sullogismos organa eisi logôn dialektikôn, kath' hous to gumnazesthai ginetai. kai hê men dia tou katholou deixis sullogistikê, hê de dia tôn hupo to katholou epaktikê. hupotassetai de tôi men sullogismôi to enthumêma, têi de epagôgêi to paradeigma. kai esti to men enthumêma rhêtorikos sullogismos, to de paradeigma rhêtorikê epagôgê. epagôgê de estin hê dia tôn kath' hekasta epi ta katholou proodos. dio ouch hugiôs legousin hoi legontes tên epagôgên logon einai apo homoiou epi homoion: ou gar homoion to katholou tois hup' auto: tês de tou katholou deixeôs charin hê epagôgê malista. ho de apo homoiôn epi homoion logos mallon an to paradeigma sêmainoi: ho gar logos ho dia tôn kathekasta to katholou deiknus kai pistoumenos, houtos estin epagôgê. ho gar deiknus dia tôn katholou hoti en pasin aristos ho epistamenos dia tou labein, hoti kubernêtês aristos ho epistamenos, homoiôs kai hêniochos, homoiôs kai stratêgos, homoiôs kai iatros, homoiôs kai geômetrês, mousikos, tektôn, di' epagôgês tou en pasin ariston einai ton epistamenon tên deixin poieitai.
For this headword see already epsilon 1921, epsilon 1922. The first part of the present tripartite entry reproduces (with slight variations) Diogenes Laertius 3.53-55.
[1] Presumably, "true premises".
[2] There is apparently something missing here. In DL the second point of this mode is the universal, which proceeds by confirming through particulars (Diogenes Laertius 3.54; for the Diogenes Laertius text, I follow Marcovich's edition).
[3] Still the headword, but now in a quite different (military) context. For such sequence-formation see e.g. Asclepiodotus 11.2 and 4.
[4] What follows reproduces, with slight changes, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Commentaries on Aristotle's Topica 85, 26-86, 19, where he is discussing Topica 15a11ff.
[5] For the use of dei=cis in this sense cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1408a26ff; Prior Analytics 34a4ff.
[6] The Greek is para/deigma (see Aristotle, Rhetoric 1356b3ff.; 1402b14ff.; Prior Analytics 68b38ff.).
[7] This definition paraphrases Aristotle's definition in Topica 105a13-14. For the issue of method in Aristotle and the role of induction in it, see Irwin (1988), 26-36 (on induction see especially 32-33).
[8] See Aristotle, Topica 105a14-16.
T. Irwin, Aristotle's First Principles (Oxford: Clarendon Press) 1988
Keywords: definition; military affairs; philosophy; rhetoric; zoology
Translated by: Marcelo Boeri on 11 June 2000@10:58:14.
Vetted by:
David Whitehead (modified headword and translation; added keyword; cosmetics) on 24 December 2002@08:16:47.
Marcelo Boeri (Corrected the Greek in notes 5 nad 6.) on 8 May 2004@18:36:52.
David Whitehead (x-refs; tweaks and cosmetics) on 27 September 2012@05:17:13.
Catharine Roth (cosmetics) on 19 December 2014@01:07:08.
Catharine Roth (coding) on 1 July 2017@23:29:33.
Catharine Roth (more coding) on 1 July 2017@23:33:35.


Test Database Real Database

(Try these tips for more productive searches.)

No. of records found: 1    Page 1

End of search