Dialectic and Arabic Philosophy

Miller, Larry Benjamin

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-45012-0_3

Larry Benjamin Miller³⁰

Part of the book series: Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning ((LARI,volume 21))

176 Accesses

Abstract

The Arabic Aristotelian philosopher’s views on jadal are available in their commentaries and paraphrases on Aristotle‘s Topics. This book was known under three titles; Ṭūbīqā, Kitāb al-Mawāḍiʽ (literally a translation of Greek topika, places) and Kitāb al-Jadal. In the longer works on this subject represented by those of al-Fārābī, Avicenna, and Averroes, the book is most often referred to as K. al-Jadal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 99.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Yaʽqūb b. Isḥāq al-Kindī, Rasā’il, ed. M. Abū Rīda, 2 vols. (Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-ʽArabī, 1950–1953), pp. 367, lines 5–6; 382, line 1 ff. Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist, ed. R. Tajaddud (Tehran: Maktabat al-Asadī, 1971), p. 309, line -3. al-Khwārizmī, Mafātīḥ al-ʽulūm (Cairo: Maṭbaʽat al-Sharq, 1342), p. 91. Abū Ḥaiyān al-Tauḥīdī , al-Muqābasāt, ed. T. M. Ḥusain (Baghdad: Maṭbaʽat al-Irshād, 1970), p. 206, line 2.
2.
On the importance of dialectics for scholasticism, cf. M. Grabmann, Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, 2 vols. (Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1909–11), vol. 2, pp. 18ff. U. Gerber, Disputatio als Sprache des Glaubens (Zürich, EVZ Verlag, 1970) p. 109.
3.
Aristotle Topics 100a18-21.
4.
This opinion is of Stoic origins. Cf. G. Ryun, “Ratio et Oratio: Cicero, Rhetoric and the Sceptical Academy” (Princeton University Ph.D. thesis, 1983), pp. 216 ff, 280 ff. In scholastic philosophy, disputatio is conceived of as a technē.
5.
cf. A. Badawi , Manṭiq Arisṭū, 3 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Qalam, 1980); for sināʽa, see Sophistic Elenchi 169b30 (Y;b. Z.; Ov); 171b11 (Y); 172b8 (Y,b.Z.); 183b13 (Y, b. Z.); 184 b4, (Y,b. Z., Ov); for ṭarīq l00a18, 102b36. The confusion cannot originate in Syriac which has calques for both words. Cf. T. Noeldeke, Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik, (Leipzig: T. Weigel, 1898), p.59.
6.
Aristotle Topics 101b5-6. Aristotle also calls sophistic a dunamis and not a technē or epistemē since the last two terms reveal the truth. Cf. S. Ebbeson, Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistic Elenchi, 3 vols. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, l98l), vol. 2, pp. 203; 153–4; 160–2. Aristotle SE 165a27 ff. Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Topicorum libros octo commentaria, ed. M. Wallies, vol. 2, pt. 2 (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1891), Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (CAG), edita consilio et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borrusicae (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1883–1909), pp. 4, line 29 through 5, line 2. H. Throm, Die Thesis, Rhetorische Studien 17 (Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1932): 26. Throm quotes Aristotle Rh. 1356b28 ff where Aristotle denies that rhetoric or dialectic can be sciences. Heidegger observes that rhetoric is technikon, not a technē because it has no specific subject matter (referring to Arist. Rh. A2 1355 b 33 sq.: διό καί φαμεν αὐτὴν οὐ περί τι γένος ἴδιον ἀφωρισμένον ἔχειν τὸ τεχνικόν. Heidegger, Grundbegriffe der aristotelischen Philosophie, 116.
7.
Alexander of Aphrodisias, Topicorum commentaria, p. 32, line 11 ff.
8.
Aristotle Rh. 1355a34; cf. 1354a1.
9.
Badawi , Arisṭū, 169b25; 170a35; 172a2 (Y, b. Z.); 172a18 (b.Z.); 172a35 (Y; cf Ov). Cf. APo. 77a31.
10.
al-Fārābī, Kitāb al-Jadal, fol.187b, MS.231 TE41, Bratislava, ed. typescript of Miriam Galston.
11.
Mashhūra. On this and other terms used to translate endoxa see R. Walzer, Greek into Arabic (Oxford: B. Cassirer, 1962), pp. 94 ff.
12.
Avicenna, Kitāb al-Jadal, ed. F. al-Ahwānī, al-Shifā’: al-Manṭiq, gen. ed. I. Madkour, vol. 6 (Cairo: General Egyptian Book Organization, 1965), p. 21 lines 4–5. Avicenna goes on to call it a “psychological habitus (malaka nafsānīya) used volitionally…” but notes that it is an art since all the sciences (ʽulūm) are arts (p. 21, lines 6–10).
13.
Only al-Fārābī notes that “Aristotle in defining this art calls it a method.” “al-Jadal,” fol.187b.
14.
al-Fārābī explains: dialectical quaesita are called theses (auḍāʽ) for waḍʽ is the name of the genus that contains some species, which are named after it (Ibid., fol.227a). Earlier, he defines dialectical quaesitum as a “proposition (qaḍīya) whose nature it is to be obtained by questioning. It is posited so that the questioner destroy it, or the respondent preserve it dialectically.” On other terms for thesis cf. Avicenna, K. al-Jadal, Arabic introduction of al-Ahwānī. pp. 28–9.
15.
Ibid., al-Jadal, text, p. 25, lines 3–4.
16.
Aristotle Topics 100a25 ff. Badawi , Arisṭū, p. 489, line -5 ff. On this division in later Arabic logic, see Sirāj al-Dīn al-Urmawī, Maṭāliʽ al-anwār, p. 349 margin where the pseudo-dialectician is called mushāghibī and the pseudo-philosopher sufisṭā’ī. For the division in Latin logic, of. L.M. de Rijk, Logica Modernorum, 3 vols. (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1962–7), vol. 1, pp. 91–2 and index s.v. disputatio. For Thomas of Aquinas’s teaching, cf. Gerber, Disputatio, pp. 126–7.
17.
Aristotle SE 165a38 ff.
18.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.210a-b. Aristotle Topics 155b16 and Badawi , Arisṭū, vol. 3, p. 727, line 2 [hoi epistēmonikoi sullogismoi = al-qiyāsāt al-ʽilmīya]. Cf. Aristotle SE 165b1-3. al-Fārābī, Kitāb al-Ḥurūf , ed. M. Mahdi (Beirut: Dar el-Machreq, 1970), p. 173, line 22 ff.
19.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal, p. 18, line 9. Avicenna, Kitāb al-Burhān, ed. A. ʽAfīfī, al-Shifā’: al-Manṭiq, gen. ed. I. Madkour, vol. 5 (Cairo: General Egyptian Book Organization, 1956), p. 194, line 15. Cf. Aristotle APo . 77b10 with Badawi , Arisṭū, vol. 1, p. 365, line 11. Yujārī qaulan is used to translate Greek dialego.
20.
Aristotle APo. 71a1. Ibid., SE 164a39, b1. Avicenna, al-Burhān, p. 57, line 12 ff.
21.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal, p. 7, lines 10–12.
22.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.196b ff.
23.
Muʽānada is often used to translate Greek enstasis , objection: e.g., Aristotle APo. 73a33; 77b34, 38; Topics 156b1-3; 157b21; 160b39.
24.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal, p. 16, line 3 ff.
25.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.211a ff.
26.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal, p. 16, line 6 ff.
27.
Avicenna, al-Burhān, p. 193, lines 3–4. Cf. Aristotle APo . 77a35 ff.
28.
Aristotle Topics 101a25 ff. Badawi , Arisṭū, vol. 2, p. 492, line 3 ff. Cf. Throm, Die Thesis. According to Gerber, Disputatio p. 67, dialectic, in early scholastic philosophy, was either totally rejected (Petrus Damiani) or used to find the truth in specific questions (Anselm of Canterbury) as in the disputationes quodlibetales.
29.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.197a. Cf. Aristotle Topics 101b2.
30.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.199b.
31.
Ibid, fol.201a. Cf. Avicenna, K. al-Jadal , p. 11, line 16 ff. Averroes, Talkhīṣ kitāb al-Jadal , ed. C. Butterworth and A. Harīdī (Cairo: General Egyptian Book Organization, 1979) p. 32, line 1 ff, for this and the following two notes.
32.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.202a, 218 ff. Cf. Plato Republic 519a. Avicenna, K. al-Jadal, p.14, line 31.
33.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.203b.
34.
Ibid., fol.214b-215a; cf. fol.195a where one should perhaps read al-munāzirāni in accord with Aristotle Topics 101a27. al-Fārābī later takes back part of what he says. When the two disputants do not have syllogisms to support their positions, then their opinions belong to the category of things that are investigated and not such that are made into dialectical theses (fol.225a ff.). Cf. Aristotle Topics 104b12-17. G. Vajda, “Autour de la Théorie de Conaissance chez Saadia,” Revue des Études Juives 126 (1967): 387.
35.
al-Fārābī, al-Ḥurūf , p. 209. Cf. Aristotle Topics 104b1-2. al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.224a. Avicenna, Ibid., pp. 82–3.
36.
Averroes, K. al-Jadal , p.32, line l ff.
37.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal , p. 15, line 14 through p.16, line 2; p. 20, lines 6–10. Cf. Abū Ḥaiyān al-Tauḥīdī , al-Muqābasāt, Number 91, p. 360. He quotes al-ʽĀmirī who defended jadal as an investigation whose purpose is to force (ījāb) an argument upon the opponent such that he has to accept it and cannot repel it.
38.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal , p.11, line 9. Cf. Aristotle Topics 161a37: to koinon ergon . Badawi , Arisṭū, vol. 3, p. 754, line -5 has al-ʽamal al-mushtarak .
39.
Aristotle Topics 155b8. Badawi , Arisṭū, vol. 3, p. 726, line 12.
40.
Aristotle Topics 155b10 ff. Badawi , Aristū, vol. 3, p. 726, line -3 ff. The translation is adapted from that of W. Pickard-Cambridge, Topica, The Works of Aristotle, ed. W.D. Ross, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928).
41.
Aristotle Topics 159a33 ff. Badawi , Arisṭū, vol. 3, p. 744, line -7 ff. In the translation of the Topics the following terms are used for dialectic discussion: jadal (108a34, 36 [= Badawi , Arisṭu, vol. 3, p. 520, lines 3, 5]; muḥāwara (158b [= Badawi , vol. 3., p. 741, line 10); munāẓara 101a27 [= Badawi , vol. 2, p.492, line 8]; mufāwaḍa 161a12 [= Badawi, vol. 3, p. 753, line 3]. Cf. SE 169a39 and Badawi , vol. 3, p. 847, lines 5–6.
42.
J. Le Blond, Logique et Méthode chez Aristotle, (Paris: J. Vrin, 1938), pp. 24–5. Cf. Abū l-Ḥusain al-Kātib , Kitāb al-Burhān fī wujūh al-bayān, ed. A. Maṭlūb and Kh. al-Ḥadīthī (Bagdhad:Jāmiʽat Baghdād, 1967), p. 224, line 16 ff. J. van Ess, “The Logical Structure of Islamic Theology,” Logic and Classical Islamic Culture, ed. G.E. von Grunebaum (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1970), p. 25.
43.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal , p. 321, lines 10–13.
44.
Cf. above note 40 and 41.
45.
Averroes, Kitāb al-Jadal, ed. G. Jehamy, Averroes Paraphrase de la Logique d’Aristote, 3 vols. (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1982), p. 641, line 13. This is the same as in Averroes, Talkhīṣ kitāb al-Jadal , ed. Butterworth and Ḥarīdī, p. 221, lines 16–17. cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias, Topicorum commentaria, p. 83, line 32 for dialectics as preparation for philosophy.
46.
Averroes, Talkhīṣ kitāb al-Jadal, ed. Butterworth, p. 31, lines 1, 10ff. Avicenna, K. al-Jadal, p. 14, line 3 ff. Cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias, Topicorum commentaria, p. 28, lines 1–2: “enteuxeis legōn tas pros tous pollous. Throm, Die Thesis, p. 21 and note 2 quotes Aristotle Rhetoric 1355a29.
47.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.203b-204a.
48.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal , p. 11, line 5; p. 9, line 12 through p. 12, line 8.
49.
Averroes, K. al-Jadal , p. 31, lines 7–9. Cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias, Topicorum commentaria, on Topics 161a23-4 where Aristotle discusses peevish argumentation. “To dispute agonistically and to use anything at hand is to argue against the opponent and not the thesis.”
50.
Averroes, K. al-Jadal , p. 130, line 5 ff.
51.
Ammonius, In Aristotelis De Interpretatione commentarius, ed. A. Busse, “CAG” vol. 4, pt. 5 (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1897), p. 202, line 18 ff.
52.
Cf. Aristotle Topics 104b1 ff.: “pros alētheian kai gnōsin.”
53.
For the following see Throm, Die Thesis, pp. 30 ff. and pp. 74 ff.
54.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.219b ff. He identifies muqaddima/protasis [πρότασις] with taqrīr questions and mas’ala/problēma [πρόβλημα] with takhyīr questions “even though the proposition (qaḍīya) be part of a syllogism, preparatory to it or even a queaesitum.”
55.
Cf. Aristotle De Interpretatione 20b28.
56.
Alexander of Aphrodisias, Topicorum commentaria, p. 40, line 12 ff; cf. p. 37, line 15 ff; 69, line 1ff.; 94, lines 17–24. Boethius, Anicii Manlii Severini Boetii commentarii in librum Aristotelis peri hermeneias, ed. C. Meiser, 2 vols., secunda editio (Leipzig: Teubner, 1880) pp. 357 ff.; 359, line 10 ff.
57.
Aristotle Topics 158a14 ff.
58.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal, p. 308, line 3ff. Cf. van Ess, “Disputationspraxis in der islamischen Theologie. Eine vorläufige Skizze,” Revue des Études Islamiques 44 (1976): 41.
59.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol. 205a-206b.: “huwa alladhī yufawwaḍ bihī ilā al-mujīb an yusallim aiya al-naqīḍaini.” Cf. Idem, K. al-Ḥurūf, p. 201, lines 18–19; p. 222, line 4 ff.
60.
Averroes, ed. Jehamy, p. 138, lines 15–19; cf. p. 112, lines 1–2. Aristotle APr. 24a22 ff. Averroes, Talkhīṣ K. al-Qiyās, ed. C. Butterworth and A. Harīdī (Cairo: General Egyptian Book Organization, 1983), p. 63, lines 5–11.
61.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.206a-b; Idem, K. al-Ḥurūf , p. 202, line 2; p. 222, line 14.
62.
Aristotle De Int 20b22; cf., Topics 158a14 ff.
63.
Aristotle Topics 102a37.
64.
Ibid., 103b20 ff. al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.206a-207a; fol.208b-209b.
65.
Ibid., fol.208b. Cf. Aristotle APo . 87b38 ff: “Scientific knowledge is knowledge of the universal” and therefore the scientific question must involve contraries. Le Blond , Logique et Methode, p. 18.
66.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.207a; Idem, al-Ḥurūf p. 206, line 16 ff.
67.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.208a, 209b.
68.
al-Fārābī, al-Ḥurūf , p. 165, lines 6–15; cf. Arist. Metaph. 1021b15ff.
69.
On this tripartition, cf. Walzer, Greek into Arabic, pp. 133–4.
70.
al-Fārābī, al-Ḥurūf, p. 165, lines 6–15.
71.
Cf. Throm, Die Thesis, pp. 65 ff.
72.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.206a.
73.
Ibid., fol.213a-b.
74.
Ibid., fol.213b ff.
75.
Avicenna, Kitāb al-ʽIbāra , ed. M. Khudairī, al-Shifā’: al-Manṭiq, gen. ed. I. Madkour, vol. 3 (Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʽArabī,1970) p. 97, line -1 ff.
76.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal, p. 79, line 15 through p. 80, line 5.
77.
P. Moraux, “La Joute dialectique d’apre^’s le huitie^’me livre des Topiques,” Aristotle on Dialectic, ed. G.E.L. Owen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968): 277.
78.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.188b ff.
79.
Ibid., fol.213b; cf. fol.247b. Idem, al-Ḥurūf , p. 207, lines 18–22; p. 208, lines 5–7.
80.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.188b ff.
81.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal, p. 30, lines 5–7.
82.
Aristotle Topics 160a11–12, trans W. Pickard-Cambridge, Topica. Aristotle Topics 160a11–12: “houtō gar ho apokrinomenos ouden doxei di’ hauton paskhein, ean proorōn hekasta tithēi.” Badawi , Arisṭū, vol. 3, p. 748, lines 2–3: “matā kāna waḍʽuhū li-wāḥid wāḥid min al-ashyā’ allatī yadaʽuhā baʽda taqdīmihī al-naẓar fīhī wal-ta’ammul lahū.”
83.
Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, Āsās al-iqtibās, ed. M. Riẓavi₋ (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 1947), p. 449, line 9 ff.
84.
Avicenna, al-Safsaṭa , ed. F. al-Ahwānī, al-Shifā’: al-Manṭiq, gen. ed. I. Madkour, vol. 7 (Cairo:General Egyptian Book Organization, 1958) p.75, lines 8–10.
85.
Aristotle SE 174b38-40.
86.
Averroes, Talkhīṣ kitāb al-Safsaṭa , ed. S. Sālim (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub wal-Wathā’iq al-Qaumīya, 1972), p. 110, lines 5–9.
87.
Cf. Aristotle Topics 164b2-4.
88.
al-Fārābī, “K. al-Jadal,” fol.188a.
89.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal , p. 30, lines 1–4. Avicenna sometimes uses the term daʽwā (On this see the Arabic introduction p. 29).
90.
Avicenna, K. al-Jadal , p. 32, lines 10–13.
91.
Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosphers, ed. and trans, R. Hicks, VII.39 (translation by Hicks). Cf. P. Moraux, Le Commentaire d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise aux “Secondes Analytiques” d’Aristote (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1979), p. 9, fragment 1.
92.
Aristotle Topics 105b19 ff.
93.
Diogenes Laertius Lives VII.42 (translation by Hicks). Cf. above, note 92.
94.
e.g. Plato’s Gorgias and Republic.
95.
Alexander of Aphrodisias, Topicorum commentaria, p. 19, lines 15–16. Following Aristotle, he remarks that the questions between the various philosophical schools are endoxa ; for example, “Is the soul immortal as Plato holds or a fifth substance as Aristotle holds?” For Aristotle dialectic is not suited to discussing scientific questions since, among other things, it allows the use of false premises. E.g. Aristotle Topics 161a27 ff. Cf. The Works of Aristotle, vol. 1, s.v. premises.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Queens, NY, USA
Larry Benjamin Miller

Authors

Larry Benjamin Miller
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Miller, L.B. (2020). Dialectic and Arabic Philosophy. In: Islamic Disputation Theory. Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45012-0_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45012-0_3
Published: 14 July 2020
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-45011-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-45012-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics