While I understood the basic meaning of what Aristotle asserts, “But I say, that the enunciation of the same thing is opposed synonymously, and not homonymously, or such other particulars of this kind, as we have concluded against the annoyances of the sophists.”, I could not immediately generate examples in my mind to demonstrate this principle to myself. “What does it mean to oppose one enunciation homonymously?” I would ask myself. Perhaps, because sophists do this, with the regular intention to deceive, I would reason that they must be quite proficient in their ability to switch the meaning of a term, mid-discourse, and run with that new meaning, while leaving the other poor soul completely behind, confused, and wondering what in the world just happened. With this in mind, I attempted to pretend to be a sophist, as absurd as it was to actively think in this way:
I could assert that, ‘the night is dark’, to which a sophist would oppose, ‘the knight is not dark’.
Or, perhaps I could assert, ‘all is well (meaning good)’, to which a sophist would oppose, ‘there is no well (meaning for water)’.
Or, perhaps I could assert, ‘it is to the right of here’, to which a sophist would oppose, ‘I have nowhere to write‘, etc.
I find it most amusing, that fools pretending to be wise, were what led to the rise of Aristotle, and his Organon; which seems to be scientifically, totally, and absolutely, concerned with destroying their deceptions, while simultaneously helping man, being a rational animal, to live according to how he was designed by God: by his reasoning.
EAR