9/16/02

9/23/02

9/30/02

10/7/02

10/14/02

10/21/02

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

For Plato in the Gorgias, a true art is regulative and corrective; it's goal is to maintain order and harmony. It seeks "good" rather than "pleasure."
 
 

	Order	Harmony
	Regulative	Corrective	for Body
Genuine (Art)	Gymnastics (real effects)	Medicine	(Good)
False (Knack)	Cosmetics (Appearance)	Cookery	(Pleasure)
	Regulative	Corrective	for Soul
Genuine (Art)	Lawgiving (Legislation)	Justice (Court)	(Good)
False (Knack)	Sophistic (Appearance)	Rhetoric	(Pleasure)

In the Gorgias, rhetoric is spurious becuase it deals in opinion and appearance; it is a form of flattery that seeks pleasure rather than good as its end. Moreover, a true art must be able to render an account of the nature of its methods; art cannot be irrational.
 
 

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

1.  Heuristic discourse --- generative capacity--discourse aids in discovering or creating knowledge; it leads to judgments and decisions

Rhetoric as epistemic

rhetoric as persuasion

rhetoric as instructive or as a guide

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

1.  Unilateral Transaction and Asymmetrical Relationship between Rhetor and Interlocutor
(Gorgianic View)

  --------->  active speaker and passive audience (recipient)

2.  Bilateral Transaction; Symmetrical Relationship between Rhetor and Interlocutor
(Protagorean view)

<--------> meaning is co-constructed by rhetor and audience; issues are founded on and resolved by hearer’s opinion; both sides of a question need to be examined together; neither side privileged a prior

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

 1.  Argument Ad Rem -- means thing itself; its validity is self-contained (internal validity) -- ex. tenets of geometry leads to validity if you follow principles maxims.  pure logic;  Truth is grounded in the structure. Premises are unassailable. Does NOT need an audience   (some classical philosophy)

2.  Argument Ad Humanatatum -- universal ideal; arguments made to the ideal of audience; any rational person would agree; principle of law courts (such that the same argument given to 12 people will have the same outcome) -- a questionable assumption but one that governs a lot of discursive activities nevertheless.  Truth is ideal; it transcends time, place, people, etc. Premises are self-evident to rational people. Does NOT need an audience. (Some trad. philosophy)

3.  Argument Ad Hominen *-- rhetorical argument; the outcome is determined by audience -- external validity; it is based on securing agreement, action or getting audience to see your way. Truth is adjudicated by the audience. Premises are debatable. (Most rhetorical theories)
*As Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca note: “Argument ad hominem must not be confused with argument ad personam, which may be defined as a personal attack on the opponent and which aims essentially at disqualifying him” (New Rhetoric 111). Both are valid arguments nevertheless.
 
 

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

EPISTEMOLOGY Certain Knowledge (episteme) is not possible; Doxa (opinion; contingent knowledge) is all that’s possible

those who are wise [philosophers] are those who are able by opinion (doxa) [conjecture] to hit upon what is for the most part the best course of action (Antidosis)

The ability to make proper use [of doxa] at the appropriate time, to conceive the right sentiments about them in each instance, and to set them forth in finished phrases, is the peculiar gift of the wise (Panegyricus)

I am accustomed, that is, to tell students in my school of rhetoric that the first question to be considered is--what is the object to be accomplished by the discourse as a whole and by its parts. And when we have discovered this and the matter has been accurately determined, I say that we must see the rhetorical elements whereby that which we have set out to do may be elaborated and fulfilled (Antidosis)

It is better to form probable opinions about useful things than to have exact knowledge of useless things (Helen)

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

What is Logic?
Logic is the science of formal principles of reasoning or correct ‘necessary’ inference.
It is Aristotle's view of how knowledge is produced. It is the first systematic treatment of the laws of thought in relation to the acquisition of knowledge.
Aristotle's collection of logical treatises is known as the Organon.
Aristotle was the father of this science. About Aristotle's new science Durant wrote, "Before Aristotle, science was embryo; with him it was born.”
Logic is every man’s land. Reason and experience, rationalism and empiricisms, rely heavily on logic to get from one idea to the next.  Way to go from this land to the final destination in the epistemological revolution.

Got an idea?
How are you going to deal with it?  Have you consulted Aristotle?
“Deduction and Induction” is the starting point.

Deduction: the process of determining what is necessarily true based on what is already known to be true. It consists of three statements: two related assumptions ‘premises’ and a conclusion ‘syllogism.’

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.

Some jewelry will increase in value.                                                Some A is B.
Anything that will increase in value is a good investment.             All B is C.
Therefore, some jewelry is a good investment.                               Therefore, Some A is C.

How do you feel about your hypothesis?
A hypothesis is a doubt pending proof. It is tested with new ideas and information. If certain evidence supports your hypothesis, BINGO! But if another evidence refutes your hypothesis, you can start work on developing a whole new hypothesis capable of explaining the new evidence. This is a win-win situation.

Does rhetoric start with a hypothetical conclusion in order to persuade someone’s mind and then seeks its justifying premises?
 

Problems with Logic:

1- Words can have more than one meaning.
2- The need to start up with premises that can be faulty in spite of having good logic.
3- Why do first principles not need to be proven like “All men are mortal?”
4- How many events or individuals of a kind justify a generalization?
5- People’s personalities come into play to deceive people. Aristotle did not have tolerance for the logical tricks of the Sophists.

1- Kind: what is a thing?
2- Quality: what are its characteristics?
3- Quantity: How many are there or how big it is?
4- Relation: how does it relate to other things?
5- Location: where is it?
6- Time: when is it or how old is it?
7- Action: what is it doing?
8- Reception: what is being done to it?

Top of Page

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

On Nature:

“Nature flies from the infinite, for the infinite is unending or imperfect, and Nature ever seeks an end.”
 -- Cf. “Nature abhors a vacuum.”

“Nature makes everything either because it is necessary or because it is better so.”
 -- Cf. Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection

“A boy is like a female in form, and the female is as it were an impotent male, for it is through a certain incapacity that the female is female, being incapable of concocting the nutriment in its last stage into semen.”

“For the female is, as it were, a mutilated male, and the [menses] are semen, only not pure; for there is only one thing they have not in them, the principle of soul.”

“The female cannot generate perfectly by herself alone, for then the male would exist in vain, and Nature makes nothing in vain.” [see above]

“For females are weaker and colder in nature, and we must look upon the female character as being a sort of natural deficiency.”

On the Male:

“The heat in man’s heart is purest. His intellect shows how well he is tempered, for man is the wisest of animals.”
 -- Cf. the Great Chain of Being, and the modern view of humankind

“The result of intercourse is exhaustion and weakness, … for the loss of the pure and healthy blood is an exhausting thing.”

On fetal development:

 “For Nature, like a good householder, is not in the habit of throwing away anything from which it is possible to make anything useful.” Just as the householder offers the best food to the men, the residue to the slaves and the worst to the animals, so in utero the female matter acted on by male semen forms the flesh and organs, while umbilical nutrition from the mother only provides for growth in size and for less important parts like hair and nails.
 -- Cf. the Law of Conservation of Energy

“Those who say that children are nourished in the uterus by sucking some lump of flesh or other are mistaken.” [Whew!!]

Top of Page

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

Rule-Governed Procedure: A rule-governed procedure specifies a series of finite steps that can be carried out consciously and mechanically without the aid of intuition or special ability, and if properly carried out ALWAYS YIELD a “correct” (or same) result.

Heuristic Procedure: “A heuristic procedure provides a series of questions or operations whose results are provisional. Although more or less systematic, a heuristic search is no wholly conscious or mechanical; intuition, relevant knowledge, and skill are also necessary. A heuristic is an explicit strategy for effective guessing”
                                 --Richard Young “Concepts of Art…”

Aristotle’s Definition of Rhetoric: Rhetoric then may be defined as the faculty of discovering the possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever (Rhetoric I.ii.1 p. 15).

Top of Page

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

---

CLASSICAL RHETORICS AND EPISTEMOLOGIES:
 SELECTED FIGURES

 Plato

  Truth -- is univocal, unchanging, immutable, absolute  and metaphysical
  Knowledge -- certain  (episteme) -- a cognitive function
  Rhetoric  -- is dialectic  (or dialectical in nature)

Gorgias

  Truth -- may be absolute but can’t be known by humans
  Knowledge -- a matter of negotiation -- an experiential function
  Rhetoric -- is operational and motivistic (recreates experience to
    motivate)

Isocrates

  Truth -- is co-constructed, changing according to the kairos
  Knowledge -- is contingent (man is limited)--a situational function
  rhetoric -- is controversial (argument) and consensus building arrived at
    by debate and eloquence

Aristotle

  Truth -- is existential (i.e., of this knowable world) (some truths are
   certain, some are co-constructed)
  Knowledge -- several kinds

  a.  Practical knowledge --based on experience--knowledge of particulars
  b.  Theoretical Knowledge (certain knowledge/episteme) knowledge of
   universals (rational)
  c.  Productive knowledge (in between) -- knowledge of what is
   generally the case but not always (contingent knowledge/doxa)

  Rhetoric -- is a matter of problem-solving, and case building, (determining
   true, and right, differ according to the problem)

Top of Page

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

---

Syllogisms

  Major premise (general)  All A are B
  Minor premise (particular) C is an A
  Conclusion    C is B

The two premises share one term such that their conjunction leads to a conclusion, which draws its subject term from one premise and its predicate from another.
 
 

A               B	A       B
All people are mortal.	All mortals die.
C             A	C              A
Socrates is a person.	Socrates is a mortal.
C          B	C              A
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.	Therefore, Socrates will die.

Top of Page

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

---

October 14

---

FOUR GENERAL LINES OF INQUIRY & ARGUMENT

1.  Possible or Impossible -- is something possible or impossible
   Most useful for DELIBERATIVE
    (but also used in FORENSIC & EPIDEICTIC)

2.  Past Fact -- Whether a thing has or has not happened
   most useful for FORENSIC

3.  Future Fact -- Will something happen
   most useful for DELIBERATIVE

4.  Degree--more or less, greatness and smallness
   most useful for EPIDEICTIC

Top of Page

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

---

LOGOS (reasoning)

Two Major Ways of Demonstration

Inductive (from particular to general)
Deductive (from general to particular)

Two Major Forms of Demonstration

Example
Enthymeme

EXAMPLES:  2 Functions

  1.  Paradigmatic -- inductive; starting point -- building from particular to general; examples taken together become a category for adjudicating subsequent point

  2.  Elaboration -- give enthymeme, and elaborate on (or support) it with an example; deductive -- moving from general to particular

EXAMPLES: Two Types

 1.  Historical
 2.  Invented
    A.  Fables
    B.  Analogies

 ENTHYMEMES

Enthymeme -- from Greek “thymos” (“spirit”). Ancient Greeks located the Thymos in the midsection of the body; quite literally then an enthymematic proof was supposed to grab people in the gut.

Form of enthymeme shares form of syllogism but differs in the nature of premises and conclusions

   Major Premise: debatable, typically built on common sense (what people generally believe to be true--doxa)
   Minor Premise: debatable or “certain”
   Claim: Audience adjudicates truth value

Examples:
 Athenians love to argue  (based on unexamined experience or common wisdom  Debatable)
 Socrates is an Athenian  (can be established as a fact)
 Socrates loves to argue  (debatable based on major premise)

Wise men are just   Debatable  (common wisdom)
 Socrates is wise   Debatable (examples or unexamined experience)
 Socrates is just   Conclusion   (debatable claim)
 

Material of Enthymemes

  probability--what is likely to happen or have happened
  examples -- elaboration of claim
  signs (fallible) -- debatable
  infallible signs (tekmeria) --not debatable
  maxims -- common sense, status of truth but debatable

FOUR ASPECTS OF ENTHYMEMES

   1) in most cases one or both premises missing; the audience is meant to supply the missing premises; hence they co-create the argument, and meaning
   2) deal with issues of value not certain truths
   3) consensus is built through enthymemes
   4) audience adjudicates the claims

Top of Page

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage

---

October 14

---

STASIS THEORY

Second century BCE,  Hermagoras’ four-part system of stasis:

1.  Fact   (stochasmos in Greek and status coniectralis in Latin)

    Is there a cause for dispute?  Did or should an act take place?

2.  Definition    (horos in Greek and status definitivus in Latin)

    What are the essential qualities that define the act?  What is its nature?

3.  Quality    (poiotes in Greek and status generalis in Latin)

  What circumstances have bearing on this settlement of the dispute?
  What are the extenuating circumstances of the act?

4.  Propriety    (metalepsis in Greek and status translativus in Latin)

  Is the dispute being argued in the proper manner, or in the right place?
  Is there anything about the act that mandates it being dismissed or considered in a different setting?
 

Stasis in Action

For stasis to occur, rhetors need to be arguing on same level and need point of disagreement (clash of points)
 

 ----> <---- stasis (same level; e.g., def.  It was murder. No it’s not.)
 

  ------->
                <-------  no stasis (different levels; e.g., to argue definition, whether it was murder when opponent wants to describe quality or extenuating circumstances)
 

 <--------
 <--------     no stasis (both agree that it is “X” ; it was murder)

Top of Page

Back to ENG530 HomePage

Goggin's Homepage