The term appears in the first sentence of Topics VIII 5: "are evident now which should be (στοχαστέον) the goals / objectives of the respondent." And then Aristotle introduces a disjunction: every proposition put by the questioner must be either generally accepted (and that "generally" seems to appeal to the justification / rationale of the respondent) or generally rejected. After that follow the consequences of accepting or rejecting a proposition, namely that if the respondent accepts or rejects, must also assume that there is a total acceptance or total rejection, ie, it must stand as a kind of "universal respondent". After Aristotle also discusses the relationship between acceptance, rejection and relevance of propositions. My question is about the beginning of discussion to establish some normative way of thinking about the goals of the respondent.
I agree that a respondent entering into discussion on an ethical proposition will to a greater or lesser extent be influenced by his/her own personal goals. Often this is not acknowledged, with the potential to lead to misunderstanding or confusion. However, I cannot think of a normative way of ascertaining what the starting position is, other than to question the interlocutor directly about the reasoning underpinning their interest in the initial proposition. I may not have understood your question, and it is a long time I did any work on Aristotle, but it is nonetheless an interesting point. Often, Aristotle contradicts himself over time when testing out various theories, and so there may be no definitive answer to this question.
Since Aristotle's aim here is to explain how arguers should engage in argument, it seems clearly to me to play a normative role. See the clearly normative recommendation at 159b3. Hope this helps!
Thank you Roger and Nicholas. So, I can realize a normative way to explain the goal(s) of respondent in an ethical discussion, not for others. Since Aristotle is trying to develop a method for every discussion, I have any doubts if "stochasteon" can be a merely expression for "ok, now it is established" in a weak sense, and not "ok, now it's MUST be established".
Agreed. When Aristotle is using a weak sense of "established," he clearly indicates as much. I would take this as a firm conclusion.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy