Protasis and Problema in the Topics

Abstract

The purpose of this discussion is to show that Mrs Martha Kneale has misunderstood Aristotle's distinction between protasis and problema in the Topics. She writes that, according to Aristotle, protasis and problema are both questions and the difference between them ... is merely one of form, ...'t Then, she goes on to state what, according to her, this distinction may amount to: the distinction is perhaps that between the thesis proposed for discussion, i.e. the starting-point of the argument, and a question put later to keep it going. We may suppose that the question for discussion is 'Is animal the genus of man?' This is the protasis, the starting-point. In the course of the argument, the questioner asks 'Is it or is it not a property of animals to be self-moving?' This would be a problema.2 After this, she contrasts the use of thse words in the Topics with that found in the Prior Analytics. She writes that there the word 'protasis' means a statement and in chapters 26 to 28 of the first book of that work ... problemna also seems to mean a statement.3 Kneale thinks that Aristotle has changed his point of view. In the Prior Analytics he is concerned to find out how a given proposition can be proved rather than how a given question can be answered either in the affirmative or negative. In the Topics he has always the two disputants in mind.4 Then, she brings etymological considerations in support of her view that the two words have undergone changes in meaning: Protasis is from 7pOw?tvw ('to hold forth or offer') and is therefore something offered for consideration at the beginning of the dispute, while problema is from 7pop3&XXo ('to throw forward or down')