Contra principia negantem disputari non potest

Contra principia negantem disputari non potest (also: contra principia negantem non est disputandum or Contra principia negantem disputari nequit ) is a Latin proverb that calls for the recognition of common bases for communication and contains a rejection of ideological arguments.

The sentence goes back to a passage in Aristotle 's Physics (1,2 185a 1-3), in which the point is that a debate about geometry reaches its limits if the opponent does not recognize the principles of geometry.

In German translation, the sentence reads: "You cannot argue against someone who denies the principles", for example: "You cannot argue with someone who denies the principles / foundations (the discussion / communication)."

A question or a dispute about the principles themselves is called a question of principle or a dispute of principle .

The reasoning reaches its limits in discussions about ethics , everyday convictions , the humanities as well as in the field of empirical , scientific knowledge , so that the sentence is used.

The sentence can be found in numerous discussions on the topic of discussions and issues , for example in Eristische Dialektik (1830) by Arthur Schopenhauer .

In 1929 the logical empririst Walter Dubislav turned against what he believed to be a frequent claim by the proponents of criticism according to Immanuel Kant that the sentence does not apply when it comes to some philosophical assertions because every dispute about philosophy does not clearly address the difference to mathematics obvious principles of philosophy.

In 1946 the philosopher Karl Jaspers took the view that formal clarity is provided in the logical disputation of science through the assumption of fixed principles and the derivation of consequences from them, but disputations often end with the establishment of the sentence and a “spiritual wholeness “Are not always helpful.

In 1994, the philosopher Karl Popper saw it as a mistake that every rational discussion had to start from certain principles or axioms that must be dogmatically accepted if infinite recourse is to be avoided. Popper discusses the question of whether it is necessary, if one wishes to rationally discuss the validity of principles or axioms, to revert to principles and axioms at the same time. According to Popper, the proponents of the principle usually either dogmatically insist on the truth of a framework of principles or axioms, or they become relativists and say that there are different framework conditions and therefore there is no rational discussion between them, i.e. no further rational choice. Popper sees this as an error who tacitly assumes that every rational discussion has the character of a justification, a proof, a demonstration or a logical deduction from accepted premises . This scientific type of discussion could also show philosophy that there is another type of rational discussion, namely a critical discussion that does not attempt to prove, justify, or establish a theory. Such a discussion does not seek to be inferred from higher premises, but rather seeks to test the theory under discussion by finding out whether its logical consequences are all acceptable or whether it may have undesirable consequences.

The sentence appears again and again in discussions about the relationship between the natural sciences and the humanities. The terms meaning , understanding and awareness are understood differently in the field of humanities than they are understood in the field of natural science. This makes it necessary to avoid mutual accusation of not recognizing the principles, i.e. to develop a common terminology and communication about the argumentation.

See also

• Intersubjectivity
• Issue

literature

• Hubert Schleichert : How to discuss with fundamentalists without losing your mind . Instructions for subversive thinking (=  Beck series . Volume 1344 ). 5th edition. Beck, Munich 2005, ISBN 3-406-58378-4 ( limited preview in the Google book search).

Individual evidence

1. ↑ ^{a b} Kurt Bayertz : Why be moral at all? (=  Beck series . Volume 1696 ). 1st edition. Beck, Munich 2006, ISBN 3-406-54132-1 ( limited preview in the Google book search).
2. ^ Friedrich Kirchner , Carl Michaëlis : contra principia negantem disputari non potest . In: Dictionary of Basic Philosophical Terms (=  Philosophical Library . Volume 67 ). 5th edition. Verlag der Dürr'schen Buchhandlung, Leipzig 1907, p. 127 ( Online at zeno.org at Zeno.org .).
3. ↑ Heinrich August Pierer: Princīp . In: Universal Lexicon of the Present and Past . 4th edition. tape 13 . Publishing house by HA Pierer, Altenburg 1861 ( online at zeno.org at Zeno.org .).
4. ↑ Arthur Schopenhauer: The art of being right (=  Reclams Universal Library . Volume 19091 ). Reclam, Ditzingen 2014, ISBN 978-3-15-019091-3 , p. 23 .
5. ↑ Walter Dubislav: On the methodology of criticism . (1929). In: Nikolay Milkov (ed.): The Berlin group . Texts on logical empiricism by Walter Dubislav, Kurt Grelling , Carl G. Hempel , Alexander Herzberg , Kurt Lewin , Paul Oppenheim and Hans Reichenbach . Edited, introduced and annotated by Nikolay Mikov (=  Philosophical Library . Volume 671 ). 1st edition. Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg 2015, ISBN 978-3-7873-2534-4 , p. 406 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
6. ↑ Karl Jaspers : The idea of ​​the university . Springer-Verlag, Berlin / Heidelberg / New York 1980, ISBN 3-642-61848-0 , disputation and discussion, p. 61 ( limited preview in Google Book Search - reprint of the 1946 edition).
7. ^ Karl Popper : The Myth of the Framework. In Defense of Science and Rationality . Ed .: Mark Amadeus Notturno. Routledge, London / New York 1994, ISBN 0-415-13555-9 , pp. 59–60 (English, limited preview in Google Book Search - Reprint 1997).
8. ↑ Nadia Zaboura: The empathic brain. Mirror neurons as the basis of human communication . With a foreword by Jo Reichertz . VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2009, ISBN 978-3-531-16390-1 , Meaning / Sense: A discontinued model in times of naturalism ?, P. 116–117 ( limited preview in Google Book search).