Ma`aref-e Manteqi

The concept of "topics" (al-mawāḍi‘) as the cornerstone of dialectical and demonstrative arguments has always been of great interest to major logicians such as al-Fārābī and Avicenna. Inspired by Aristotle, these thinkers sought to organize these inferential tools into various classificatory frameworks—based on scope, type of predicate, or source of derivation. However, the diversity and seemingly scattered nature of these classifications may raise for the contemporary researcher the question of how these different patterns are systematically related to one another, and how one can choose the optimal path among them in argumentation. This article aims to take a step toward systematizing and integrating these classifications, while remaining faithful to the historical and epistemological foundations of the logical tradition. By accepting the analytical richness of each of the traditional patterns, the present study seeks to offer a hybrid framework by combining two key axes: logical structure and epistemic aim. In this new model, each topic is situated not in an isolated list, but at the clear intersection of a type of claim and a kind of argument. The ultimate outcome of this reexamination is a map that both reveals the internal coherence of the tradition of classifying topics and, by rendering this concept more applicable, makes it more accessible for analyzing and constructing arguments in the contemporary intellectual landscape.