Note 435 — VIII.

Ibid. a. 24-34.

The example whereby Aristotle illustrates this position is obscure and difficult to follow. It is borrowed from the Platonic theory of Ideas. The point which you are supposed to be anxious to prove is, that one opinion is more opinion than another (ὅτι ἐστὶ δόξα μᾶλλον ἑτέρα ἑτέρας). To prove it you ask as premisses: (1) That the Idea of every class of things is more that thing than any one among the particulars of the class; (2) That there is an Idea of matter of opinion, and that this Idea is more opinion than any one of the particular matters of opinion. If this Idea is more opinion, it must also be more true and accurate than any particular matter of opinion. And it is this last conclusion that Aristotle seems to indicate as the conclusion to be proved: ὥστε αὑτὴ ἡ δόξα ἀκριβεστέρα ἐστίν (a. 32).

As I understand it, Aristotle supposes that the doctrine which you are here refuting is, that all ἔνδοξα are on an equal footing as to truth and accuracy; and that the doctrine which you are proving against it is, that one ἔνδοξον is more true and accurate than another. If you attempt to prove this last by invoking the Platonic theory of Ideas, you will introduce premisses far-fetched and unnecessary, even if true; whereas you might prove your conclusion from premisses easier and more obvious.

The fault is (he says) that such roundabout procedure puts out of sight the real ground of the proof: τίς δὲ ἡ μοχθηρία; ἢ ὅτι ποιεῖ, παρ’ ὃ ὁ λόγος, λανθάνειν τὸ αἴτιον (a. 33). The dubitative and problematical form here is remarkable. How would Aristotle himself have proved the above conclusion? By Induction? He does not tell us.