What do you think?
Rate this book
De Topicis Differentiis
In Ciceronis Topica and De topicis differentiis are Boethius's two treatises on Topics (loci). Together these two works present Boethius's theory of the art of discovering arguments, a theory that was highly influential in the history of medieval logic.
- GenresPhilosophyLogic
264 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 522
41 people want to read
About the author
Eleonore Stump
42 books67 followersEleonore Stump is the Robert J. Henle Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University, where she has taught since 1992. She has published extensively in philosophy of religion, contemporary metaphysics, and medieval philosophy. Her books include her major study Aquinas (Routledge, 2003) and her extensive treatment of the problem of evil, Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering (Oxford, 2010). She has given the Gifford Lectures (Aberdeen, 2003), the Wilde lectures (Oxford, 2006), and the Stewart lectures (Princeton, 2009). She is past president of the Society of Christian Philosophers, the American Catholic Philosophical Association, and the American Philosophical Association, Central Division.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 12, 2018
Boethius is mainly remembered for his Consolation of Philosophy, but he certainly was a prolific writer. Quite a bit of his output has survived. He's one of the major formative philosophers for the subsequent scholastic movement of the middle ages. His status as one of the encyclopedists is the reason why I'm getting acquainted with his more obscure works right now.
This work is philosophically Aristotelian, but Aristotelian by way of Themistius and Cicero. Both Themistius and Cicero wrote on the Topics and Categories of Aristotle. Boethius spends some time comparing and contrasting the former writers and adding his own thoughts on the subject. His major purpose with this work is to lay out means for finding arguments. He differentiates between rhetorical and dialectical philosophical purposes early on and is primarily concerned with the latter. He seems to have been most idiosyncratic in the way he dealt with the differentiae.
To be perfectly honest, this isn't an incredibly engaging work. It deals with categorical and topical minutiae that is quite dry and probably only matters to specialists. That said, I was quite impressed with, not only Eleonore Stump's translation, but with her notes and essays. She certainly attempted to make the subject matter more accessible. I can't fault her effort at all. Her input certainly added to this book overall.
If someone wants to be acquainted with streams of Aristotelian thought and the way it influenced the scholastics, or just wants to be better acquainted with Boethius, I might recommend this book. I doubt the average reader would want to delve into discussions that often seem to be semantical and not all that practical in matters of logic.
This work is philosophically Aristotelian, but Aristotelian by way of Themistius and Cicero. Both Themistius and Cicero wrote on the Topics and Categories of Aristotle. Boethius spends some time comparing and contrasting the former writers and adding his own thoughts on the subject. His major purpose with this work is to lay out means for finding arguments. He differentiates between rhetorical and dialectical philosophical purposes early on and is primarily concerned with the latter. He seems to have been most idiosyncratic in the way he dealt with the differentiae.
To be perfectly honest, this isn't an incredibly engaging work. It deals with categorical and topical minutiae that is quite dry and probably only matters to specialists. That said, I was quite impressed with, not only Eleonore Stump's translation, but with her notes and essays. She certainly attempted to make the subject matter more accessible. I can't fault her effort at all. Her input certainly added to this book overall.
If someone wants to be acquainted with streams of Aristotelian thought and the way it influenced the scholastics, or just wants to be better acquainted with Boethius, I might recommend this book. I doubt the average reader would want to delve into discussions that often seem to be semantical and not all that practical in matters of logic.
February 18, 2019
Participants in the reading group: Phil Donnelly, Todd Buras, Junius Johnson, Katie Calloway, Aaron Cassidy, Wesley Garey, Lindsay Fenton, Michael Gutierrez, and me.
Dedication page mentions Daniel 12:3.
Preface
7: "This book is a philosophical study of Boethius's treatise De topicis differentiis"; "My principal aim is to make Boethius's treatise available and comprehensible to scholars for whom the technical Latin vocabulary and unfamiliar subject matter have made it inaccessible"
Introduction
13: "the last of the Romans"; "tutor of the Middle Ages"; accused of treason by Theodoric and put to death around 525
14: author of the Consolation of Philosophy, theology, quadrivium (math and music); wanted to reconcile Plato and Aristotle and translate them into Latin
15: De topicis differentiis concerns finding arguments (Books 1–3 on dialectic; Book 4 on rhetoric)
16: topic = locus = place; mind palaces for remembering speeches (mnemonic Topics); dialectical/rhetorical Topics help produce arguments
17: predicables: genus, species, definition, differentia, property, and accident
18: Aristotelian dialectic involves questions/answers (dialogue)—also provides a method for investigating first principles (20)
18–19: dialectic and demonstrative arguments are not mutually exclusive
19: disputation: argument for a particular purpose
20: techne: "an art for finding in an orderly way dialectical arguments to support one side or another of a question"
20–23: Cicero's Topica
24: Boethius's De top. diff. intends to systematize dialectic, making it a more concise tool for finding arguments; eventually superseded by Peter of Spain's Tractatus (standard logic textbook from late 13c to end of 15c)
25: Cicero and Boethius see the art of discourse (ars disserendi) as having two branches: dialectic (finding arguments) and logic (judging/evaluating arguments)
26: comments on Stephen Toulmin
Book 1
Boethius puts logical topics and rhetorical topics together.
JJ: medieval commonplace: the intellect must be purified by virtue to function properly
Boethius is clearer than Aristotle on the difference between a proposition and a question.
29: topics and their differentiae
30: argumentation: "the unfolding of the argument by means of discourse (oratio)"; topic: "the seat of an argument"; propositions are affirmative and negative
31: Predicate = category (something that can be said...)
32: risible (can laugh); JJ: laughter requires a soul and a body, so angels (no body) and hyenas (no soul) cannot laugh
Description is what you do when you don't know the definition/name.
32ff.: conditionals; terms vs. propositions
33: "A question is a proposition in doubt"
35: "The thesis belongs to philosophers, the hypothesis to orators" [thesis : hypothesis :: general : specific]
[Descartes seems to be interested only in maximal propositions (what can't be denied)]
Boethius is filtering Aristotle
39: conclusion: "a proposition confirmed by arguments"
39: argument: "a reason producing belief regarding something which is in doubt" [Buras: this definition is broader than contemporary logic textbooks; it has epistemological concerns]
41: discourse disciplines: dialectician, orator, philosopher, sophist
42: studying the Topics "aid[s] both competence in speech and the investigation of truth"; strengthen by exercise—"brings force to art and power to nature"
Book 2
I missed the Feb. 26 meeting, when the group started on Book 2.
Books 2–3 are on dialectical topics
43: two kinds of argumentation: syllogism [deduction] and induction; syllogism includes propositions that people agree to, leading to a necessary conclusion that was not priorly agreed to
44: predicative/categorical and conditional/hypothetical syllogisms; induction is the progression from particulars to universals
45: induction is more readily believable, but it is less certain than a syllogism; induction sometimes leaves out truths —> whoever knows singing is a singer, but it's not necessarily true that whoever knows evil is an evildoer, because virtuous people need to know evil (can't shun vice if you don't know what it is [cf. Milton's Areopagitica])
45: an imperfect syllogism is an enthymeme (omitted proposition), and an imperfect induction is an example (presentation of a particular)
46: "A Topic, as Cicero would have it, is the foundation (sedes) of an argument"
47: "propositions that are both universal and maximal are called Topics"
51: four causes (efficient, material, formal, final)
52: four cardinal virtues; "virtue is the habit of a well-ordered mind"
54–57: topics that supply arguments for questions: judgment, from similars, from greater, from lesser, from proportion, from opposites, from transumption
57: transumption and Plato's Republic
62: transition from Themistius's division to Cicero's division
Book 3
62: PD: The first sentence will drive certain biblical commentators (who require a fool-proof method of hermeneutics) crazy
62: Cicero's division: logic has two parts, discovering and judging
65: three-part division of the soul (vegetative, perceptive, intellective)
68: PD: antecedent/consequent language here seems backward, but it's forensic/lawyer talk—if you know the antecedent (woman is pregnant), then you can deduce the consequent (sex with a man)
68: modus ponens and modus tollens (conditionals)
69: JJ: word is amasse, which means "love," but Stump's translation of desired is appropriate (it's not real love)
69: JJ: "Comparison of the lesser" seems to be more persuasive than "Comparison of the greater"; me: cf. a fortiori (seems to fit "Comparison of the lesser" well, and there doesn't seem to be a corresponding term for "Comparison of the greater"); maybe a fortiori fits both and just goes in opposite directions (the first example is pardon; the second example is vengeance)—cf. doctrine of the mean?
69: Catiline
73: fraud: "one thing is done and something else is pretended"
74: Diagram 1: Themistius's division and Cicerio's division
76: Diagram 2: Themistius and Cicero again
77: transumption again
78: Diagram 3: Themistius and Cicero again
Book 4 (on rhetorical topics)
79: dialectic concerns the thesis (more general than rhetoric); rhetoric considers the hypothesis (concerns circumstances: who, what, where, when, why, how, and by what means)
79–80: final, formal, efficient (causes)
80: differences between dialectic and rhetoric consist in matter, use, and end [re: end, is dialectic the open hand, and is rhetoric the closed fist? Zeno says it's the other way around]
80: three species of rhetoric: judicial [forensic], epideictic [demonstrative], and deliberative
82: five parts of rhetoric: discovery [invention], arrangement [organization], expression [style], memorization, and delivery
82: the instrument of rhetoric is discourse; six parts of rhetorical discourse: prooemium/exordium, narrative, partition, confirmation, refutation, and peroration
83: "work" of rhetoric: teach and move [no delight?]
94: dialectic is universal/general, and rhetoric is particular/specific (dialectic is prior)
95: Aristotle's Topics are lost
On April 30, the last day that we met, PD and JJ seemed to finally come to some kind of consensus regarding dialectic and rhetoric. PD seems to have believed in the priority of rhetoric, whereas JJ seems to have agreed with Boethius (that dialectic is the genus and rhetoric is the species [p. 94]). But as they talked, they seemed to understand each other's position better and maybe agreed that each was emphasizing one point to counteract the perceived deficiencies (theological/philosophical problems) of the other's emphasis. PD's book project on Xn ed. currently has this emphasis; JJ's recent (?) book has the opposing emphasis.
Dedication page mentions Daniel 12:3.
Preface
7: "This book is a philosophical study of Boethius's treatise De topicis differentiis"; "My principal aim is to make Boethius's treatise available and comprehensible to scholars for whom the technical Latin vocabulary and unfamiliar subject matter have made it inaccessible"
Introduction
13: "the last of the Romans"; "tutor of the Middle Ages"; accused of treason by Theodoric and put to death around 525
14: author of the Consolation of Philosophy, theology, quadrivium (math and music); wanted to reconcile Plato and Aristotle and translate them into Latin
15: De topicis differentiis concerns finding arguments (Books 1–3 on dialectic; Book 4 on rhetoric)
16: topic = locus = place; mind palaces for remembering speeches (mnemonic Topics); dialectical/rhetorical Topics help produce arguments
17: predicables: genus, species, definition, differentia, property, and accident
18: Aristotelian dialectic involves questions/answers (dialogue)—also provides a method for investigating first principles (20)
18–19: dialectic and demonstrative arguments are not mutually exclusive
19: disputation: argument for a particular purpose
20: techne: "an art for finding in an orderly way dialectical arguments to support one side or another of a question"
20–23: Cicero's Topica
24: Boethius's De top. diff. intends to systematize dialectic, making it a more concise tool for finding arguments; eventually superseded by Peter of Spain's Tractatus (standard logic textbook from late 13c to end of 15c)
25: Cicero and Boethius see the art of discourse (ars disserendi) as having two branches: dialectic (finding arguments) and logic (judging/evaluating arguments)
26: comments on Stephen Toulmin
Book 1
Boethius puts logical topics and rhetorical topics together.
JJ: medieval commonplace: the intellect must be purified by virtue to function properly
Boethius is clearer than Aristotle on the difference between a proposition and a question.
29: topics and their differentiae
30: argumentation: "the unfolding of the argument by means of discourse (oratio)"; topic: "the seat of an argument"; propositions are affirmative and negative
31: Predicate = category (something that can be said...)
32: risible (can laugh); JJ: laughter requires a soul and a body, so angels (no body) and hyenas (no soul) cannot laugh
Description is what you do when you don't know the definition/name.
32ff.: conditionals; terms vs. propositions
33: "A question is a proposition in doubt"
35: "The thesis belongs to philosophers, the hypothesis to orators" [thesis : hypothesis :: general : specific]
[Descartes seems to be interested only in maximal propositions (what can't be denied)]
Boethius is filtering Aristotle
39: conclusion: "a proposition confirmed by arguments"
39: argument: "a reason producing belief regarding something which is in doubt" [Buras: this definition is broader than contemporary logic textbooks; it has epistemological concerns]
41: discourse disciplines: dialectician, orator, philosopher, sophist
42: studying the Topics "aid[s] both competence in speech and the investigation of truth"; strengthen by exercise—"brings force to art and power to nature"
Book 2
I missed the Feb. 26 meeting, when the group started on Book 2.
Books 2–3 are on dialectical topics
43: two kinds of argumentation: syllogism [deduction] and induction; syllogism includes propositions that people agree to, leading to a necessary conclusion that was not priorly agreed to
44: predicative/categorical and conditional/hypothetical syllogisms; induction is the progression from particulars to universals
45: induction is more readily believable, but it is less certain than a syllogism; induction sometimes leaves out truths —> whoever knows singing is a singer, but it's not necessarily true that whoever knows evil is an evildoer, because virtuous people need to know evil (can't shun vice if you don't know what it is [cf. Milton's Areopagitica])
45: an imperfect syllogism is an enthymeme (omitted proposition), and an imperfect induction is an example (presentation of a particular)
46: "A Topic, as Cicero would have it, is the foundation (sedes) of an argument"
47: "propositions that are both universal and maximal are called Topics"
51: four causes (efficient, material, formal, final)
52: four cardinal virtues; "virtue is the habit of a well-ordered mind"
54–57: topics that supply arguments for questions: judgment, from similars, from greater, from lesser, from proportion, from opposites, from transumption
57: transumption and Plato's Republic
62: transition from Themistius's division to Cicero's division
Book 3
62: PD: The first sentence will drive certain biblical commentators (who require a fool-proof method of hermeneutics) crazy
62: Cicero's division: logic has two parts, discovering and judging
65: three-part division of the soul (vegetative, perceptive, intellective)
68: PD: antecedent/consequent language here seems backward, but it's forensic/lawyer talk—if you know the antecedent (woman is pregnant), then you can deduce the consequent (sex with a man)
68: modus ponens and modus tollens (conditionals)
69: JJ: word is amasse, which means "love," but Stump's translation of desired is appropriate (it's not real love)
69: JJ: "Comparison of the lesser" seems to be more persuasive than "Comparison of the greater"; me: cf. a fortiori (seems to fit "Comparison of the lesser" well, and there doesn't seem to be a corresponding term for "Comparison of the greater"); maybe a fortiori fits both and just goes in opposite directions (the first example is pardon; the second example is vengeance)—cf. doctrine of the mean?
69: Catiline
73: fraud: "one thing is done and something else is pretended"
74: Diagram 1: Themistius's division and Cicerio's division
76: Diagram 2: Themistius and Cicero again
77: transumption again
78: Diagram 3: Themistius and Cicero again
Book 4 (on rhetorical topics)
79: dialectic concerns the thesis (more general than rhetoric); rhetoric considers the hypothesis (concerns circumstances: who, what, where, when, why, how, and by what means)
79–80: final, formal, efficient (causes)
80: differences between dialectic and rhetoric consist in matter, use, and end [re: end, is dialectic the open hand, and is rhetoric the closed fist? Zeno says it's the other way around]
80: three species of rhetoric: judicial [forensic], epideictic [demonstrative], and deliberative
82: five parts of rhetoric: discovery [invention], arrangement [organization], expression [style], memorization, and delivery
82: the instrument of rhetoric is discourse; six parts of rhetorical discourse: prooemium/exordium, narrative, partition, confirmation, refutation, and peroration
83: "work" of rhetoric: teach and move [no delight?]
94: dialectic is universal/general, and rhetoric is particular/specific (dialectic is prior)
95: Aristotle's Topics are lost
On April 30, the last day that we met, PD and JJ seemed to finally come to some kind of consensus regarding dialectic and rhetoric. PD seems to have believed in the priority of rhetoric, whereas JJ seems to have agreed with Boethius (that dialectic is the genus and rhetoric is the species [p. 94]). But as they talked, they seemed to understand each other's position better and maybe agreed that each was emphasizing one point to counteract the perceived deficiencies (theological/philosophical problems) of the other's emphasis. PD's book project on Xn ed. currently has this emphasis; JJ's recent (?) book has the opposing emphasis.
September 6, 2012
Admittedly dry at parts, here are the humdingers:
-Knowledge of topics is most useful for dialecticians and orators, and helps philosophers about topics of necessary arguments, points "out in a certain way the path to truth" (1182B)
-the instrument of the discipline of rhetoric is discourse 1207D
-Definition of success may be to speak well by one's own definition or to persuade 1208C
-Knowledge of topics is most useful for dialecticians and orators, and helps philosophers about topics of necessary arguments, points "out in a certain way the path to truth" (1182B)
-the instrument of the discipline of rhetoric is discourse 1207D
-Definition of success may be to speak well by one's own definition or to persuade 1208C
September 24, 2012
If you are weird and like Early Church treatises on rhetoric and logic, then this is for you. I found Stump's translation very pleasing to the eye and I'm definitely hoping on In Ciceronis Topica
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews