My problem concerns the portion in boldface letters.
The noun is supposed to be taken in its general sense man, the species. I was taught that in such cases the article would be required. I have checked Smyth’s grammar, to find any instance in which the article could be omitted, and this I found: “Words denoting persons, when they are used of a class, may omit the article. […] πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπός ἐστι.”, (1129)
I am not quite sure what is going on here.
Is the entry in Smyth’s I mentioned applicable to the phrase I highlighted? If so could any one explain it further?
If not, what is the proper explanation of the syntax?
Whichever the case, what is difference in meaning between the sentences ἔστι λευκός ὁ ἄνθρωπος and ἔστι λευκός ἄνθρωπος; and between πάντων μέτρον ὁ ἄνθρωπός ἐστι and πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπός ἐστι
Well, yeah, this is hardcore analytical philosophy, as you realize. He’s discussing general propositions and their negations, and in context your bolded bit makes good sense:
“There is a white man” (or “A white man exists,” or “White man exists”): “There is no white man” (or “A white man does not exist” or “White man does not exist”).
The immediate philosophical distinction he’s drawing is with πᾶς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, οὐδείς ἄνθρωπος λευκός, “Every man is white: No man is white” (or “No-one is a white man”).
(Though masculines are used, ανθρωπος itself, unlike ανηρ, is not gender-specific, so could also be translated “person.”)
Your ἔστι λευκός ὁ ἄνθρωπος would be scarcely meaningful: “The man exists, white." The initial ἔστι is the so-called “existential” εστι, as distinct from εστί used as copula, which Aristotle dispenses with.
“The man is white” would be ὁ ἄνθρωπός (ἐστι) λευκός or ὁ ἄνθρωπος λευκός (ἐστιν) or λευκός (ἐστιν) ὁ ἄνθρωπος, with λευκός in predicative position (outside of article+noun) and with (or without) copulative εστί—as in πάντων μέτρον ἄνθρωπός ἐστι “Man is the measure of everything”, where ανθρωπος is a generic term: we don’t have that in the Aristotle.
Not sure if it is applicable. The context appears to be a series of bare context free disembodied propositions, in other words there is no text in the class to misquote Stanley Fish. So each statement about man could printed alone in the middle of a white card without context. With that in mind ἄνθρωπος is probably simply indefinite. Aristotle is not my cup of tea so take this with a grain of salt.
ARISTOTLE, On Interpretation
‘Socrates is white’ and ‘not white’ constitute in this manner a pair. But if anything else is denied or the subject itself should be changed, though the predicate yet may remain, the denial will not correspond but be one that is simply distinct. To ‘every man is white,’ for example, ‘not every man is white’ corresponds, as ‘no man is white,’ ‘man is not white’ to ‘some men are white,’ ‘man is white.’
LCL- 1938
Socrate n’est pas blanc. Mais si l’on énonce une chose différente de la même chose, ou bien la même chose d’une chose différente, ce n’est plus une énonciation opposée, c’est une énonciation autre que la première. Ainsi, à cette proposition : Tout homme est blanc, la proposition opposée est : Quelque homme n’est pas blanc; et à celle-ci : Quelque homme est blanc, l’opposée est : Aucun homme n’est blanc; et à celle-ci enfin : L’homme est blanc, l’opposée est : L’homme n’est pas blanc.
I was curious about πᾶς ὁ ἄνθρωπος so I looked for it. Found it in dubious places like
Well, yeah, this is hardcore analytical philosophy, as you realize. He’s discussing general propositions and their negations, and in context your bolded bit makes good sense:
“There is a white man” (or “A white man exists,” or “White man exists”): “There is no white man” (or “A white man does not exist” or “White man does not exist”).
At first, I thought the esti to be “existencial”. So There is a white man seemed to be a proper translation of the affirmative sentence I highlighted. However, he is talking about ὅταν δὲ τῶν καθόλου μέν, μὴ καθὀλου δέ, which I render, rather clumsily, in English, as declaring something about the general (meaning of the noun), not in a general manner. There is a white man fits the context. Nevertheless, I can not say the same thing about the negative “There is no white man” which denies that any individual is white, and appears to imply the negative No man is white, which was given as example in the last set of propositions, i.e., about the general, in a general manner (as in every man is white).
I may be missing something – and I think I am – but perhaps the negative would be rendered in English with a different grammatical structure.