Raisonnement dialectique et argument topique au Moyen Âge : une enquête à travers le Commentaires sur les Topiques d’Aristote (1250-1500)

La seule monographie consacrée à la réception des Topique d’Aristote au Moyen Age est le livre de Nigel J. Green-Pedersen, The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages. The Commentaries on Aristotie ‘s and Boethius’ Topics’, publié en 1984. Les recherches sur la logique médiévale, qui ont été conduites pendant les derniers trente années, ont suggéré la nécessité d’une révision de l’analyse développé par Green-Pedersen. Cette thèse se pose comme objectif de situer les commentateurs médiévaux des Topiques d’Aristote dans leur milieu intellectuel. En prenant en considération une documentation inédite, nous avons essayé d’illustrer l’influence des différentes orientations philosophiques des commentateurs sur leurs modes d’interprétation du texte d’Aristote. Les premiers maîtres Parisiens essayèrent de dénouer des questions qui étaient issues de l’exégèse littéraire des Topiques, comme le problème concernant la forme et la matière des divers types des syllogismes, et en particulier du syllogisme dialectique. Leurs successeurs, notamment les auteurs Modiste comme Boece de Dace, Simon de Faversham et Raoul le Breton, se détachèrent de l’exégèse littéraire du texte pour envisager des questions métalogiques de caractère générale. Au milieu du XIVe siècle, Jean Buridan proposa une interprétation innovative du raisonnement dialectique, selon laquelle les raisonnements dialectiques valides comprenaient soit les arguments formellement valides que celles invalides. On retrouve l’opinion Buridanienne d’argumentation dialectique dans les commentaires du XVe siècles, qui furent produits dans les universités dominés par le nominalisme. Tandis que dans les universités d’orientation réaliste, les commentateurs des Topiques se retournaient vers les auteurs du XIlIe siècle, comme Albert le Grand. Les commentateurs Anglaises des Topiques, comme le Pseudo-Bonaventure, Jean Duns Scot et Walter Burley, développèrent leurs interprétations des Topiques en continuité avec tradition logique Britannique d’orientation terministe et de façon autonome des leurs collègues Parisiens.For anyone who intends to inquiry into the reception fo the Arisotelian Topics in the Middle Age, the inevitable starting point is the unique monography dealing with this issue, namely The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages. The Commentaries on Aristotie‘s and Boethius ‘Topics’, published by Nigel Jørgen Green-Pedersen in 1984. Since the publication of this volume, scholarly research on medieval logic has shown the need to define better there suits of Green-Pedersens ‘s analysis. My PhD thesis aims at placing the commentators of the Topics in their intellectual context. Through the analysis of manuscript material, I have tried to show the bearing of authors’ diverse philosophical orientations on their approach to and reflections on the Aristotelian work. The earliest Parisian masters who commented on the Topics were concemed with issues that originated from the literaI explanation of the text, e.g. whether the various types of syllogisms had different forms or whether they differentiated only materially. Their prosecutors, namely the modistic authors Boethius of Dacia, Simon of Faversham and Radulphus Brito analysed the Topics in a different way. They paid special attention to metalogical questions, which were beyond the scope of the mere literal explication of the text. In mid-14th century, the Parisian master of art John Buridan proposed an innovative view about the proper subject of dialectic: it was dialectical argumentation, namely a probative or convincing reasoning which brought the agent an epistemic gain, although it could be formally invaiid. Buridan’s opinion about the subject matter of dialectic was adopted by 15th century masters, who taught in University that were nominalist in orientation. In those 15th century Universities in which the via antiqua provided the intellectual setting for masters and scholars, commentators of Aristotle’s Topics were influenced by 13th century commentators, such as Albert the Great. The English reception of the Aristotelian Topics was significantly diverse from the continental or Parisian tradition. The commentaries written by Pseudo-Bonaventure, John Duns Scotus and Walter Burley shared common features, which were strictly connected to terministic logic and which were not present in Parisian commentaries of the same period

Dialectical Reasoning and Topical Argument in the Middle Ages: an Inquiry into the Commentaries on Aristotle's Topics (1250-1500)

In my dissertation I have analysed 35 commentaries on the Topics from various epochs and places. I have focused my attention on the possible influences of the different views about logic and logical doctrines on the different approaches to the Topics that Medieval commentators employed. The main outcome of this scrutiny was the identification of two different and autonomous exegetical traditions, namely British, and continental or Parisian. Furthermore, my research has highlighted the presence of the Boethian tradition of the topics alongside its Aristotelian counterpart. The presence of the Boethian topics was attested to by the demarcation between the logical and epistemological facets of dialectical reasoning. This demarcation was expressed through the distinction proposed by Parisian ‘pluralists’ between inferring and proving syllogisms, or through the Buridanian separation between the illatio and the probatio. Both the Parisian ‘pluralists’ and John Buridan and his followers described the probative side of reasoning in connection to the Boethian definition of argument. Thus, they characterized the proving argumentum in terms of cognitive psychology. The proving argument did not consist in the mere correct application of logical rules of inference, which yielded a necessary conclusion, but it was a reasoning that engendered a belief in the subject. And the topic, especially the locus maxima propositio, was the warrant for the transfer of belief from the premises, which were more known and believed than the doubted conclusion, to the conclusion itself. Thus, in commentaries written by Parisian ‘pluralists’, Buridan and his followers, the dialectical reasoning was not limited to the dialectical syllogism, which differed from the other types of syllogisms only in virtue of the epistemic state of its premises. For these authors influenced by Boethius, the dialectical reasoning was a topical reasoning, which differed from the formal reasoning since it started from different points, applied diverse rules, and produced different results. This ‘epistemological’ understanding of the dialectical reasoning allowed commentators to enlarge the spectrum of dialectical reasoning and to expand upon less rigorous kinds of argumentations, namely induction, enthymeme and example.status: publishe

KEBERANIAN MENGUBAH HIDUP

115hlm;;13x20c