What do you think?
Rate this book
On Sophistical Refutations
On Sophistical Refutations is a book written by Aristotle, a Greek philosopher who lived in the 4th century BCE. The book is a treatise on the topic of logical fallacies and sophisms, which are arguments that appear to be valid but are actually false or misleading. In the book, Aristotle identifies and analyzes various types of fallacies, such as equivocation, amphiboly, and false cause, and provides examples of each. He also discusses the ways in which these fallacies can be used to deceive people and undermine the truth. The book is considered an important work in the field of logic and rhetoric, and has influenced subsequent thinkers in these fields. It is also notable for its clear and concise style, which makes it accessible to readers of all levels of expertise.First we must grasp the number of aims entertained by those who argue as competitors and rivals to the death. These are five in number, refutation, fallacy, paradox, solecism, and fifthly to reduce the opponent in the discussion to babbling-i.e. to constrain him to repeat himself a number of or it is to produce the appearance of each of these things without the reality.This scarce antiquarian book is a facsimile reprint of the old original and may contain some imperfections such as library marks and notations. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment for protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature in affordable, high quality, modern editions, that are true to their original work.
56 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 348
11 people are currently reading
387 people want to read
About the author
Aristotle
3,943 books5,487 followersAristotle (Greek: Αριστοτέλης; 384–322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
June 14, 2020
Yes, I thought this book by Aristotle was great, really. Whereas the 'Topics' and 'Posterior Analytics' felt more like the pot pourri of Prior Analytics, the sophistical elenchii analyses the 'dialectical syllogism' or 'paralogism'. These paralogisms could include various sorts of different propositions leading up to conclusions. Q.E.F.s and Q.E.D.s are essentially tackled throughout and you get a real sense for what and how a dialectic would have been constructed.
If, after you've read this, you are aware that Euclid's Elements is very similar to Plato's Timaeus, or even Plato's Republic, then you've done well. You understand how vast and broad Aristotle's categorization is, the breadth of his subject matter, and the depth of what he is talking about. This is primarily a book on logic, very little on debate. A paralogism is essentially a structure of things to talk about necessitating a conclusion, and although the road can twist and wind in various ways, there are many routes to a single, central conclusion, the main tenets of which are the QEDs along the way, and the QEF, much like the icosahedron or the dodecahedron, or the immortality of the soul, remains to be discovered.
If, after you've read this, you are aware that Euclid's Elements is very similar to Plato's Timaeus, or even Plato's Republic, then you've done well. You understand how vast and broad Aristotle's categorization is, the breadth of his subject matter, and the depth of what he is talking about. This is primarily a book on logic, very little on debate. A paralogism is essentially a structure of things to talk about necessitating a conclusion, and although the road can twist and wind in various ways, there are many routes to a single, central conclusion, the main tenets of which are the QEDs along the way, and the QEF, much like the icosahedron or the dodecahedron, or the immortality of the soul, remains to be discovered.
August 11, 2011
This book has given rise to millennia of clear thinking and to millennia of confusion. Some scholars hold that Aristotle's writings were not as much books as teaching notes. We cut him slack for being the inventor of the modern idea of logic and really, the first scientist. This does not mean that he is not shockingly obscurantist and full of what by our standards are bizarrely self-contradictory statements. In fact, were we at present to take his works for books-proper, we'd find in him––in the unlikely event that we were able to elide aeons of heroification and 'greatness' mongering––what is often simply very sloppy thinking. This knowledge is absolutely essential for reading Aristotle. In fact, it is impossible to understand him without understanding the huge ambition of his project and the countless ways in which, constantly, valiantly, he failed it. And how, like any good scientist, he tried again, changing and changing.
It is Aristotle––more than Plato, Darwin, Freud, Marx, Cicero, or Jesus, if not Socrates––who is the cenancestor of the Western mind.
This book contains the thirteen original fallacies, which originated and continue to confuse the modern "discipline" of fallacy theory. If you don't read ancient Greek, it is essential to read all three translations (Poste, Forster, and Pickard-Cambridge) in tandem if you want to get anywhere. It is extremely slow going either way.
The edition featured here (Kessinger) is a bullshit edition published by cynics who ineptly and with half an ass harvest public domain material for profit, couching their endeavors in the context of historical preservation. Just go to Google books. All three editions are available there for free.
But perhaps I would not be writing this at all had the Roman navy not accidentally perpetrated the greatest intellectual tragedy yet to occur on this planet. I'm talking about the horrible fact that, along with a million+ other unknowable volumes, Euclid's On Fallacies was lost with the Alexandrian Library. I'm simply sure that Euclid, who began to write during Aristotle's lifetime, would have clarified and corrected so much in this work. Oh inevitable sadness of the predigital age(s).
It is Aristotle––more than Plato, Darwin, Freud, Marx, Cicero, or Jesus, if not Socrates––who is the cenancestor of the Western mind.
This book contains the thirteen original fallacies, which originated and continue to confuse the modern "discipline" of fallacy theory. If you don't read ancient Greek, it is essential to read all three translations (Poste, Forster, and Pickard-Cambridge) in tandem if you want to get anywhere. It is extremely slow going either way.
The edition featured here (Kessinger) is a bullshit edition published by cynics who ineptly and with half an ass harvest public domain material for profit, couching their endeavors in the context of historical preservation. Just go to Google books. All three editions are available there for free.
But perhaps I would not be writing this at all had the Roman navy not accidentally perpetrated the greatest intellectual tragedy yet to occur on this planet. I'm talking about the horrible fact that, along with a million+ other unknowable volumes, Euclid's On Fallacies was lost with the Alexandrian Library. I'm simply sure that Euclid, who began to write during Aristotle's lifetime, would have clarified and corrected so much in this work. Oh inevitable sadness of the predigital age(s).
August 15, 2022
Good as heuristics. But I’m skeptical of a theory of fallacies. For fallacies are just arguments that don’t have a valid logical form.
July 22, 2025
“Sofistçe Çürütmeler”, başka bir deyişle Safsatalar Kitabı, Aristoteles’in “Organon” başlığı altında toplanan mantık kitaplarından biri. Bu kitapta Aristoteles herhangi bir tartışmada çıkarım ya da çürütme gibi görünen ama aslında öyle olmayan akıl yürütmeleri kategorize edip, bunları nedenleriyle ve dayandıkları ilkelerle gösterip, bunlara karşı nasıl hazırlıklı olunabileceğine yahut bunlara nasıl cevap verilebileceğine değiniyor. Eser eski Yunancadan dilimize çevrilmiş. Bir tartışmada kandırıldığımızı anlamak ya da muhatabın yanıldığını ispat etmek için ipuçları…
July 16, 2020
(4*s) I only read Chapters 1-3 and 34 (epilogue), those only included in The Basic Works of Aristotle edited by Richard McKeon.
Two parts I liked:
1. Aristotle lists the "number of aims entertained by those who argue as competitors and rivals to the death," in descending order of success: refutation, fallacy, paradox, solecism, and fifthly to reduce the opponent to babbling - to constrain him to repeat himself.
2. Aristotle claims that in everything, "the first start is the main part’: and for this reason also it is the most difficult; for in proportion as it is most potent in its influence, so it is smallest in its compass and therefore most difficult to see: whereas when this is once discovered, it is easier to add and develop the remainder in connexion with it.” Such foundation has existed for rhetoric and other arts; however, no such foundation existed for the art of sophistry. Aristotle claims that the professors of contentious arguments have imparted to their pupils not the art of argument, but only its products. Therefore, the pupils can only mimic the dialectical arguments from the examples, with a show of knowledge, yet they cannot generate wisdom connected to reality - they "make money from an apparent but unreal wisdom."
There is a good summary of De Sophisticis Elenchis in Wikipedia here, listing all thirteen fallacies exploited in sophistry.
Two parts I liked:
1. Aristotle lists the "number of aims entertained by those who argue as competitors and rivals to the death," in descending order of success: refutation, fallacy, paradox, solecism, and fifthly to reduce the opponent to babbling - to constrain him to repeat himself.
2. Aristotle claims that in everything, "the first start is the main part’: and for this reason also it is the most difficult; for in proportion as it is most potent in its influence, so it is smallest in its compass and therefore most difficult to see: whereas when this is once discovered, it is easier to add and develop the remainder in connexion with it.” Such foundation has existed for rhetoric and other arts; however, no such foundation existed for the art of sophistry. Aristotle claims that the professors of contentious arguments have imparted to their pupils not the art of argument, but only its products. Therefore, the pupils can only mimic the dialectical arguments from the examples, with a show of knowledge, yet they cannot generate wisdom connected to reality - they "make money from an apparent but unreal wisdom."
There is a good summary of De Sophisticis Elenchis in Wikipedia here, listing all thirteen fallacies exploited in sophistry.
March 2, 2023
This book is the manifestation of Aristotle's opposition to the arguments put forward by the members of the aristocratic class, who give lectures in the fields of philosophy, socioeconomic and sociology in return for money, on issues such as good and bad, morality and virtue, in order to refute them. So much so that it examines how to think about the sophists' "probable to say" words and comments.
Aristotle was helpless against the view that "man is the measure of all things" (in my opinion). And herein lies the reasons why he was so opposed to the sophists, who would even destroy his own philosophy.
To this revolt of Aristotle: “I shall speak of the refutations of the sophists and their apparent refutations, which are in fact nothing but paralogism.” begins by saying. I can say that with his attitude here, he broke the heart of Aristotle with the views of the sophists.
The sophists, by advocating a subject-based philosophy, had an ideal of revealing the "new man", and they said that the way to knowledge is an act gained through the senses before the mind, and the certainty of every knowledge should be discussed, since the threshold of the senses changes from person to person, it shook the world of the period. It seems that it was not only the world that was shaken. :) Of course, this would be the inevitable end for someone who says that a limited mind can be free.
Aristotle was helpless against the view that "man is the measure of all things" (in my opinion). And herein lies the reasons why he was so opposed to the sophists, who would even destroy his own philosophy.
To this revolt of Aristotle: “I shall speak of the refutations of the sophists and their apparent refutations, which are in fact nothing but paralogism.” begins by saying. I can say that with his attitude here, he broke the heart of Aristotle with the views of the sophists.
The sophists, by advocating a subject-based philosophy, had an ideal of revealing the "new man", and they said that the way to knowledge is an act gained through the senses before the mind, and the certainty of every knowledge should be discussed, since the threshold of the senses changes from person to person, it shook the world of the period. It seems that it was not only the world that was shaken. :) Of course, this would be the inevitable end for someone who says that a limited mind can be free.
September 6, 2024
Sophistical refutations is a guide for a student on how to form arguements and what to look out for; inparticular the art of the sophist, who is a charlatan who only knows how to trip you up.
All of this is pretty timeless advice and certainly - as dialecticians were a core disipline in that time (im pretty sure) - it is an interesting read and point of view.
I took great interest in this as I'm interested in logic as well as debate; For this purpose reading this book was really right up my alley; though simple as it is.
The translation is alright, but i can see why some people suggest reading different translations - afterall it is a small book, and some of the language can be a perplexing - but nothing a frequent reader of non-fiction will find too taxing.
It is nice to know that these text are all available for free from various sources, given they are ancient.
All of this is pretty timeless advice and certainly - as dialecticians were a core disipline in that time (im pretty sure) - it is an interesting read and point of view.
I took great interest in this as I'm interested in logic as well as debate; For this purpose reading this book was really right up my alley; though simple as it is.
The translation is alright, but i can see why some people suggest reading different translations - afterall it is a small book, and some of the language can be a perplexing - but nothing a frequent reader of non-fiction will find too taxing.
It is nice to know that these text are all available for free from various sources, given they are ancient.
April 5, 2022
Trying to keep up with the Aristotle readings in my logic course at RTS has been a tad difficult. The Categories wasn't terribly difficult, but On Interpretation was harder. Then Prior Analytics came along, and I only made it about sixty pages in. I never even picked up Posterior Analytics. In all the previous books it didn't help that I've been trying to work through a fairly old translation (Thomas Taylor).
All that to say, I found this book easier to digest than Prior Analytics. It certainly helped that my professor discussed it in class beforehand rather than after. Still, none of these logical treatises feel as polished as Nichomachean Ethics. But maybe I'll get the hang of it eventually. It may also help in the future if I get ahold of a more up-to-date translation.
All that to say, I found this book easier to digest than Prior Analytics. It certainly helped that my professor discussed it in class beforehand rather than after. Still, none of these logical treatises feel as polished as Nichomachean Ethics. But maybe I'll get the hang of it eventually. It may also help in the future if I get ahold of a more up-to-date translation.
August 23, 2018
Como o próprio nome do livro diz, Aristóteles se concentra aqui em categorizar e refutar os diversos tipos de argumentos sofisticos, que se baseiam em falácias lógicas. Distingue os eristicos dos sofistas, os primeiros focam na vitória do debate, enquanto que os últimos almejam fama e fortuna, distorcendo a realidade e os argumentos.
Retrata várias formas de confusão que os sofistas usam, como o uso de palavras ambíguas (anfibologia) e através do solecismo.
Finalizando o Organon, tratados lógicos de Aristóteles, percebe-se a clara superioridade do autor em relação aos seus predecessores, inclusive na didática do assunto e forma de escrever.
Retrata várias formas de confusão que os sofistas usam, como o uso de palavras ambíguas (anfibologia) e através do solecismo.
Finalizando o Organon, tratados lógicos de Aristóteles, percebe-se a clara superioridade do autor em relação aos seus predecessores, inclusive na didática do assunto e forma de escrever.
Read
March 26, 2025I finished all of Aristotles books on Logic! It was a drag at times but this one wasn't very long and actually had some interesting stuff to think about. It's interesting to notice some of these tactics in the modern world that Aristotle was combating even back then.
I have much more appreciation for math logic as well, seeing how much it improves/simplified what Aristotle was getting at.
And I do think this book may help me reason with people in a more effective way. I've tried it out a little and it was useful to keep in mind some of his tricks for catching bad arguments.
I have much more appreciation for math logic as well, seeing how much it improves/simplified what Aristotle was getting at.
And I do think this book may help me reason with people in a more effective way. I've tried it out a little and it was useful to keep in mind some of his tricks for catching bad arguments.
April 25, 2024
Un libro bastante fácil (comparado con otros del Corpus) y ameno.
Habla sobre argumentos inválidos y falacias, con sus típicas definiciones y reparaciones coñazo que le caracterizan, las más interesantes están expuestas en el eutidemo de Platón.
Si tienes algo de idea no va a aportar nada innovador pero es interesante para profundizar en el pensamiento de Aristóteles
Habla sobre argumentos inválidos y falacias, con sus típicas definiciones y reparaciones coñazo que le caracterizan, las más interesantes están expuestas en el eutidemo de Platón.
Si tienes algo de idea no va a aportar nada innovador pero es interesante para profundizar en el pensamiento de Aristóteles
Read
October 18, 2019Either I’m too stupid to understand this book, or the translation I read is garbage. I’m leaning towards the latter for the sake of my pride. The explanation of it on Wikipedia was far more intelligible. I recommend it.
August 5, 2020
I grund och botten samma sak som man vanligen hittar i argumentationsanalysgrundböcker. Den har inget egenvärde att läsa, men det är intressant att se att samma metoder som förordas idag var etablerade redan för 2300 år sedan.
April 29, 2021
I have rated the great Aristotle so low because this is a very difficult book to read. If you really want to learn about sophistical refutations, it's probably best to find a Youtube video or bullet-point blog post.
January 23, 2024
Aristotle’s book on logical fallacies and how to defend against them. I will probably be revisiting this book for the rest of my life. Sophistry is still alive and well today and we should be prepared.
July 8, 2019
A classic book, the foundation of refutation, usually used in debate.
December 31, 2019
Totally completed my reading challenges for 2019.
O my Aristotle Danke
O my Aristotle Danke
Want to read
July 19, 2020elibrary
February 2, 2023
Fascinating. This is a level up on how to argue.
July 3, 2023
Study of fallacies.
May 26, 2013
One of the main reasons that I started studying philosophy was because of an advert at Leeds Uni that asked the question 'Do you want to win arguments in pubs?' - this book is an explanation of different methods to spot holes, paradoxes and ambiguities in others' arguments and reduce them to a dribbling wreck by the end of the argument. The book does give some excellent advice, but it needs some more concrete examples to really support Aristotle's points. Also, a lot of the discussion of the arguments is based around the fact that you would already know some arguments of people from the time - which means some of the examples are lost on me!
March 24, 2014
Artistotle is a smarty pants. I didn't understand all the references, and some things are lost in translation. Great book on the art of arguing, and important to remember that winning and argument doesn't make your argument true.
Read
November 9, 2018tougher epilogue than war and peace
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews