SwiftVets.com

[GenrXr]

Originally posted this on another forum but thought some of you might enjoy reading it. Did not include the Poetic section. Written by Sister Miriam Joseph, C.S.C., Ph.D.


The Development of Logic, Rhetoric, and Poetic

The art of rhetoric originated in Sicily, when a democracy was established in Syracuse in 466 B.C. and Corax and his pupil Tisias assisted those who had been dispossessed of property to convince the judges that they had a just claim to its restoration. Corax put together some theoretical precepts based principally on the topic of general probability, called eikos (see Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.24.9), and Tisias developed it further, as Plato shows in Phaedrus. Gorgias, the Sicilian, came to Athens in 427 B.C., introduced the art of rhetoric into many parts of Greece, and had many disciples, among whom the most admirable and famous was Isocrates, the orator and teacher. Gorgias, Protagoras, Prodicus, and Hippias emphasized the graces of style, figures of speech, distinction of synonyms, correctness and elegance in the choice of words, and rules of rhythm. Gorgias aimed to teach how to convince, independent of any knowledge of the subject. He admittedly taught persuasion, not virtue. Plato and Aristotle condemned the sophists: Gorgias, Protagoras, and others for their superficiality and disregard of truth in teaching how to make the worse appear the better cause.

Aristotle himself constructed a well-balanced system of the arts of discovering and communicating the truth, and his treatises on these subjects profoundly influenced his own and succeeding ages. He systematized rhetoric and made it an instrument of truth. He explicitly claimed to be the founder of the art of logic. His Poetics is the beginning of real literary criticism.

Logic and rhetoric are concerned with the discovery and communication of truth directly from the mind of the author to the mind of the listener or reader. Poetic is a very different mode of communication, an indirect one that imitates life in characters and situations; readers or listeners share imaginatively the characters’ experiences as if they were their own; yet poetic rises out of knowledge as well as feeling, and logic and rhetoric are employed in the communication of the whole, which goes beyond them. Poetic is argument through vivid representation.

Logic

Aristotle divided logic, according to its subject matter, into scientific demonstration, dialectic, and sophistic, treated in the works named below.

1 Posterior Analytics. Scientific demonstration has as its subject matter premises that are true, essential, and certain. In this field there are not two sides to a question but only one. The reasoning is merely expository, as in geometry, moving step by step to the conclusive demonstration of what was to be proved. Prior Analytics treats certainty through form. The work is concerned with inference, and it presents the syllogism.

2 Topics. Dialectic has as its subject matter opinion, not certain knowledge; therefore, the premises are merely probable.
In this field there are two sides to a question, and there is reasonable support for opposing views, both only probable, neither certain, although each person engaging in the discussion may be personally, even ardently, convinced of the truth of their views. Yet he cannot justly regard them as having the quality of geometric proof because each must recognize that the matter under discussion is not intrinsically clear and that his opponents view is true and that which he has advanced is false, he may be justly said to have won the argument because he has gained truth, which he now sees, his opponent had at the start. Plato’s Dialogues are the perfect examples of dialectic.

3 Sophistical Refutations (treatise on material fallacies). Sophistic has as its subject matter premises that seem to be generally accepted and appropriate but which really are not appropriate. In this field, usually that of opinion, the sophist seeks not truth but only an appearance of truth, achieved by the use of fallacious arguments designed to put down the opponent in contentious dispute. Anyone who wins by such methods has not won truth. On the contrary, he has made error appear to have triumphed over truth, and nobody has won truth by means of the argument. (Marx, Trotsky, Chomsky and Zinn come to mind) It is a sad commentary that many people today attach to the word argument only the sophists conception, entertain the sophistic notion of “winning” an argument, and ignore the fine and constructive pursuit of, or understanding of, truth to be gained by the only forms of argument worthy of the name, namely scientific demonstration and dialectic.

Rhetoric

Rhetoric, according to Aristotle, is the counterpart of the dialectic, and the rhetorical enthymeme is the counterpart of the dialectical syllogism. Both these arts, rhetoric and dialectic, deal with opinion, with probability, not certainty, and therefore these two arts, and they alone, are capable of generating arguments on two or more sides of a question. Dialectic deals with philosophical and general questions, proceeds by question and answer, employs technical language, and is addressed to philosophers. Rhetoric deals with particular questions, such as political action, proceeds by uninterrupted discourse, usually employs nontechnical language, and is addressed to a popular audience.
Rhetoric is defined by Aristotle as the art of finding in any given subject matter the available means of persuasion. The modes of persuasion are three, and since Aristotle remarks, one must know not only what to say but how to say it effectively in words and in a well disposed order, his basic treatment may be outlined as follows.

Persuasion is achieved by means of logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos requires one to convince the minds of the listeners or readers by proving the truth of what one is saying. Pathos requires one to put the listeners or readers into a frame of mind favorable to one’s purpose, principally by working on the emotions. Ethos requires one to inspire in the audience, by courtesy and other qualities, confidence in ones character, cop, good sense, good moral character, and good will.

Style is characterized by good diction, good grammatical structure, pleasing rhythm, clear and appropriate language, effective metaphor, etc.

Arrangement is the order of parts: introduction, statement and proof, conclusion.


The five traditional components of rhetoric were invention (finding arguments for persuasion), arrangement of the parts of a composition, style, memory of a speech, and proper use of voice and gesture in delivering it.


Sister Miriam Joseph, C.S.C., Ph.D., “The Trivium The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric Understanding the Nature and Function of Language”(Philadelphia, Paul Dry Books 2002, 1937), 225-227
_________________
"An activist is the person who cleans up the water, not the one claiming its dirty."
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Founder of Conservative Philosophy

[jwb7605]

[I B Squidly]

Logic, proof? Quaint notions for a populace that can't balance a checkbook.

Ever see Einstein's "Theory of General Relativity"? It's a single equation that stretches through some 200 pages. I just looked at it and made no attempt to read it. But, his physics like algebra or geometry owe their theorum/proof discipline to the principals of Aristotlean Logic. Political discourse relies on his Rhetoric. After the Founders only Lincoln seemed able to complete a sylogism.

Normally, 19th Century poli-speech was bombast, platitudinal or outright libel. Even Lincoln won a congressional race by the simple expedient of publishing his opponent's death notice in some critical precincts. Improved communications have discouraged such gambits but it hasn't ressurected proof or validity.

Neither party follows logic preffering rhetoric to make their point. To my mind the Republicans wrap themselves in 'Ethos', ie: I'm the good guy, belong to the country club, don't believe in killing babies and because I'm such a good guy you should believe me when I reccommend detroying the Soviet Union or Sadam Hussien. Occaisionally a statement from Laffer, Clauswitz or Nathan Bedford Forrest is used to leaven their statement but logic is not the intention.

Ethos is problematic for the Dems. Even Jack Kennedy knew he was only the focus of his father's machine and not an exceptional character on his own so his Inaugaral was merely a series of statements that relied on the formal presentation, TV and sonorous diction to carry it over to the masses. LBJ was the biggest crook in the Senate but that didn't lend itself to Ethos. Humphrey was the 'Happy Warrior' but what is that? Carter pulled the rug out from under his sanctimony by 'lusting in his heart'. The scurrilous people that head the Demos now cannot use Ethos so their pronouncements are statements of 'Pathos' appealling to emotion. 'Proofs' are presumed: Bush lied; we're carpet bombing babies in Bagdad; Cheney tortures Korans at Gitmo; Castro is a hero; rich people/Republicans are keeping you down and so on. They cloak their dubious character as wounds acquired in the 'good fight', they're victims of the 'establishment' and their followers should not be distracted by clay feet, lack of clothing, or criminal malfeasance because they are fighting racism, for the environment, for the down trodden, for the 'offended', for (fill in the blank).

Back to Kennedy: People listening to the Nixon debates thought Dick won on reason and content. People who watched thought Jack won because...he looked so good. So much for logic in public discourse. As a 2nd grader I thought I got enough exercise and resented his Physical Fitness Program.
_________________
"KILL ALL THE LAWYERS!"

-Wlm Shakespeare

[GenrXr]

[GenrXr]