Category Discussions from Ancient Philosophical and Logical Approaches to the Present: The History of Argumentation Studies and Three Different Types of Argumentation in Aristotelian Philosophy

Mantık Araştırmaları Dergisi Journal of Logical Studies Category Discussions from Ancient Philosophical and Logical Approaches to the Present: The History of Argumentation Studies and Three Different Types of Argumentation in Aristotelian Philosophy Yazar(lar) | Author(s): Mustafa YEŞİL Bu makaleyi kaynak gösterin | Cite this article: Yeşi̇l, M. "Category Discussions from Ancient Philosophical and Logical Approaches to the Present: The History of Argumentation Studies and Three Different Types of Argumentation in Aristotelian Philosophy". Mantık Araştırmaları Dergisi 2 (2020): 6-39 Bu makaleye çevrimiçi ulaşın | See this article online: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mader/issue/59321/736030 ISSN 2687-3125 | e-ISSN 2687-3125 Mantık Araştırmaları Dergisi Yıl: 2 Sayı: 3-4 2020 / Bahar-Kış Category Discussions from Ancient Philosophical and Logical Approaches to the Present: The History of Argumentation Studies and Three Different Types of Argumentation in Aristotelian Philosophy** Mustafa YEŞİL* Keywords: category, argument, demonstration, dialectic, rhetoric. ••• Necmettin Erbakan University, Department of Philosophy, **This research supported by TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, programme - 2219) has been written at CRRAR (The Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric) in the University of Windsor, Department of Philosophy. I would like to thank Professor Christopher W. Tindale not only for his very valuable and constructive contributions to this research but also for his broadening my horizon on argumentation studies. *** Some sections of this research has been published in Turkish in the book “Mustafa Yeşil, Kategori ve Metafor, Litera Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2020.” * Geliş Tarihi: 12-05-2020 Kabul Tarihi: 21-12-2020 Yayın Tarihi 31-12-2020 When we investigate the history of philosophy from Heraclitus to Aristotle, we see that almost each philosopher in this process has tried to explain (or define) what being, non-being, motion, truth, knowledge, value and so on are. Undoubtedly, the inquiries here are directly related to determine the categories of these mentioned things. As is known, categorization process is a structural activity that shapes all human cognitive processes in terms of classifying not only physical objects but also mental states and abstract ideas. This means that perception, thinking, learning, explaining and making sense of the objects and properties in the external world become possible only through categorization. We claim that the mentioned ancient philosophical discussions on categorization issue historically form the basis of argumentation studies. That Aristotle who’s been influenced by previous philosophical discussions has systematically structured argumentation studies through his theory of categories makes this clear. That Aristotle and some Aristotelian philosophers consider arguments not only as demonstrative (apodeictic) arguments but also dialectical and rhetorical arguments show that argumentation studies have a wide range of application, namely it should not be limited to just demonstrative or rhetorical arguments. ARAŞTIRMA MAALESİ Abstract Category Discussions I. Some ancient discussions leading to the argumentation studies That Heraclitus considers the phenomenon of change as the fundamental reality of the universe affects argumentation studies as well as all sub-fields of philosophical investigation. As is known, this basic reality assumption can be understood from his famous three fragments. One fragment mentions that “On those who step into the same rivers, different and different waters flow.” (B 12).1 When this fragment is analysed, even if different waters flow on those stepping into the rivers staying the same, we can consider each river has an identity so we can talk about it as a subject. That what are changed are waters rather than rivers gives us communication and investigation opportunities on them. The second fragment attributed to Heraclitus notes that “It is not possible to step into the same river twice.” (B 91).2 This means that continuity of change makes the rivers stepped into in different times different rivers from each other. No doubt that such an explanation makes impossible to speak on a river as a being. In such a case even what a river is cannot be defined because of constantly changing or flux. The last fragment ascribed to Heraclitus says “We both step and do not step into the same rivers; we both are and are not.” (B 49a).3 There is no doubt that such an admission makes impossible to talk about not only river but only a person stepping into it since both of them constantly change. When we especially consider the second and third fragments here, we need to accept that making arguments about ontological or factual issues is redundant. For example, if everything totally changes so quickly, even in the case of a murder it will be impossible to say that x has killed y. Namely since the x killing y will not be the same x after the mentioned case, it cannot be judged and found to be guilty of a particular crime.4 Some ancient commentators claim these second and third fragments are not authentic.5 But, we can see some kind of explanations like these in Barnes, The Presocratic Philosophers, p. 50. Barnes, The Presocratic Philosophers, p. 49. 4 Appleton, R. B., The Elements of Greek Philosophy – From Thales to Aristotle, Methuen, London, 1922, pp. 33-34. 5 G. S. Kirk, Heraklitus: The Cosmic Fragments, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1975, pp. 366-380; G. S. Kirk et. al, The Presocratic Philosophers, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005, pp. 195-197; Barnes, The Presocratic Philosophers, pp. 49-50. 2 3 7 Mustafa YEŞİL Heraclitus’ unity of opposition doctrine. This means that Heraclitus influences the argumentation studies not only with his fragments on river but also with his explanations on the unity of opposition. In fact, although the philosopher considers the running of universe as a constant change and transformation between hotness and coldness, he in his some explanations imply that such opposites are the one and same thing. We very well know that “The sea is the purest and foulest water: for fish drinkable and life-sustaining; for men undrinkable and deadly.” (B 61)6 does not make any contradiction. Because, that pureness and dirtiness here are valued by different beings makes possible the mentioned opposite qualities can be predicated on the same subject at the same time. However, even if we ignore that we have learned such an interpretation awareness from Aristotle, Heraclitus does not always make the relation between opposite qualities clear in this way. “Immortals are mortal, mortals immortal, living the others' death, dead in the others’ life.” (B 62).7 “The same…: living and dead, and the waking and the sleeping, and young and old. For these transposed are those, and those transposed again are these.” (B 88).8 “The (...truncated)