FIRST

B

...I believe, one must approach the Arts and sciences that treat those matters explicitly, rather than Dialectic The formal study of logic and reasoning as practiced in the schools of the time. itself. Nor is it surprising since each discipline professes and has Truth as its goal. Each strives to illustrate its subject so that its nature becomes clear. I foresee what you will answer. You will say that Dialectic does not specifically discern this truth or falsehood as its primary duty. Instead, it provides a general method that all sciences then use to discern them.

This is the reason why Dialectic is called the scale, the balance, and the examination of Truth. It is called the measure, the judge, and the rule of the Arts. It is called the vestibule, the gate, and the key of the Sciences. It is called the Sun, the torch, and the eye of the Mind. What a jumble, my immortal God! But I ask you in good faith: what finally is this method? Or to select one from so many titles: what is this balance by which one may correct every truth and falsehood? This is what I have been seeking for a long time. Do you have anything to bring forward besides these beautiful words?

If you said that experience is the balance by which the truth of a thing must be weighed, I would not disagree. For example, experience tells us if fire is hot or not, or if the Sun is bright or dark. This is the Judicatory A faculty or instrument used for making a judgment., or as they say in Greek, the criterion original: "κρῐτήρῐον" (kriterion). A standard of judgment or a test of truth.. This seems the best choice from all that has been proposed. But experience belongs to the senses or a natural faculty. It does not belong to Dialectic. You offer us something else.

You say that the way of knowing or judging truth is threefold: Definition, Division, and Argumentation. Fair words indeed, if this is a triple cord rather than a three-headed Cerberus Gassendi contrasts a helpful "triple cord" (a reference to Ecclesiastes 4:12) with the monstrous three-headed dog of the underworld.. How is it possible to imagine a balance with three scales? But let it be so. I have already spoken about the first two. I will speak about the last one soon.

I only add this here: I want to know if it is true that the Sun is a glowing stone or a mass of pumice. What help does all Dialectic provide me with its formulas for defining? The definition of Anaxagoras consists of genus and difference. The definition of Epicurus does as well Anaxagoras (c. 500–428 BC) claimed the sun was a red-hot mass of metal or stone. Epicurus (341–270 BC) argued it was a body of fire or exactly the size it appears to the eye.. Both are explained in very few and clear words. Do you think I have attained the true knowledge of the Sun's nature through either of these? I also wish to know if it is true that every soul belongs to either a Man or a Beast. How will Dialectic reveal this to me through its rules of dividing? This is especially difficult since the Stoics constantly defend this division of the soul. If they say Aristotle divides it otherwise...