This is not to scare younger homeschool moms away from Classical Writing or this blog spot, but for the philosophical blog post for the week, I thought I would share the thoughts behind our approach to logic and rhetoric in our high school books.
If you have already thought about the connections between formal logic and rhetoric and found yourself coming up puzzled as to how they tie together, this post is for you. If these pressing issues in the world of writing never even crossed your mind, don’t sweat it, just relax and read what I have to say and see if it rings a bell. Ultimately if it does not, have no worries, start at the beginning of our curriculum, and as you move your way up, surely this subject will resonate with you later on. Remember, writing classically is a huge subject with many nooks and crannies, and you’re not required to understand them all at the same time.
———————————————————————————-
Logic as it Relates to Language
Language
Sounds combine to form words (substantives) which by convention of language become terms that signify real and abstract ‘things’ in our world. For example, in English, we have established the word ‘chair’ and the sounds it makes when we pronounce it, to signify an object which is meant for humans to sit on.
We combine those words (those substantives) with their modifiers (adjectives that describe them or verbs that tell what they are doing) and with connectives (prepositions and conjunctions) to create sentences (declarative, interrogative, exclamatory, and imperative).
Declarative sentences are propositions that state something.
Logic
In Aristotle’s Organon (his treatise on logic) Aristotle featured his ten categories, which addressed the basic grammar of a sentence. His ten categories explain subjects and predicates and the different ways in which subjects and predicates can be combined to form rational sentences stating known truths.
With the use of logic, we can connect one proposition with another, and by combining those two propositions, we can create another declarative sentence (proposition) using the terms and the connections in the two original propositions. That is formal syllogistic logic.
Grammar
It is by the aid of grammar that we can combine words and terms to state a known truth in a rational manner. Therefore grammar is the starting point for all intellectual discourse. Unless a proposition conforms to certain grammatical rules (i.e. a sentence must contained both a subject and a predicate) a rational person could neither judge the truth value of the sentence nor combine it logically with other propositions to move towards new conclusions.
Propositions must be grammatically correct in order to communicate well for social as well as for logical and scientific reasons. Grammatically incorrect assertions are illogical (though they may be comprehensible to some). Therefore, mastering grammar is the first step in learning how to carry out rational discourse and intellectual inquiry.
Logic as a Science
Logic is the science of combining reasonable (grammatically correct) propositions of known truths into patterns that would yield new conclusions. What kinds of truths are we talking about?
Deduction
Truths can be perceived directly and intuitively; in this case, true propositions are intuitively obvious, (not rationally disputable), and they can be logically combined to yield other propositions that are equally indisputable.
The axioms of Euclid’s Elements are not subject to dispute because they are intuitively obvious; when the propositions of geometry are combined in correctly logical sequences, therefore, the proofs of geometry are indisputably true. Thus geometry is governed by deductive logic.
For example,
This shape is three sided.
Therefore this shape is a triangle.
Yet, not all Euclidian proofs, though they be deductive and indisputable, are immediately obvious.
Dialectic
Another way of discovering truth, is where truth emerges only through dialectic, that is through argumentation in dialogue. This is an area where truth certainly exists but where even properly stated propositions are subject to dispute or doubt and must be demonstrated and proven. This is the domain of the dialectical sciences, the area where reason must work discursively because even the most basic propositions are not intuitively obvious and may seem doubtful or disputable to a reasonable mind.
In theology, aesthetics, politics, literature, and ethics, any field in which we discover truth through dialectic, even the most basic premises require demonstration and proof before they can be accepted as true. Unlike the proposition that all triangles are three-sided figures, they are not intuitive.
Yet truth discovered through dialectic still has exactly the same character as it does in deductive logic, and thus the rules of logic are not essentially different from what they are in strict deductive logic. The main difference is that in these fields the rules of logic must be applied in more complex ways because human beings have such difficulty in perceiving the truth. Yes, logic is still logic, but logical thought in a field such as politics or ethics must be approached differently. Its tone and emphasis differ because it is working in a domain where logic must not merely state the truth but also dispute those who doubt or disagree with said truth, as well as demonstrate its proofs against all possible objections (relating to all three appeals: ethos, pathos, and logos).
In dialectic, logic must work as a dialogue between the truth and the objections to that truth. The logical inquiry must demonstrate the proof of each proposition by meeting and overcoming whatever objections exist.
Within dialectical logic reason must work discursively; logic becomes largely an art of disputation and arguments, advancing and demonstrating arguments rather than simply stating the intuitively obvious.
Rhetoric
In light of this rhetoric is not essentially different from dialectical logic because both are arts of disputation, of advancing and proving arguments through logical discourse.
The crucial differences between dialectics and rhetoric have to do with form and situation, not with substance. Rhetoric and dialectical logic are essentially the same, but they differ in their appearance or form and their situational use or occasion.
Dialectics deals with questions having an abstract and general scope, rhetoric deals with issues which have limited and immediate interest, i.e., with concrete questions involving the problems of specific times, places, and people.
Dialectic was usually carried out between two people debating a philosophical question. The dialectical philosopher would ask whether kings generally should marry at all and, if so, whether a king should prefer to marry a virtuous woman or an aristocratic woman.
Rhetoric would address, more specifically whether King Edward VI should marry one of his own subjects or a foreign princess.
The general question is whether and whom kings should marry, but while a philosopher would seek broad and general answers, a rhetorician would use his art in the context of very specific situations and occasions and would come up with a very specific proposed course of action.
Rhetoric also differs from dialectic in its stylistic presentation of its discourse; dialectical philosophy presents its verbal processes with minimal ornamentation, refusing to develop arguments in ways that will merely ‘delight’ an audience without making a strictly logical contribution to the discourse. Dialectics does not try to please indifferent or inexpert auditors.
Rhetoric, on the other hand, brings in ‘eloquence’ to make dialectics more appealing and more comprehensible; rhetoric presents its argument with language that uses consciously ‘artificial’ ornamentation and conscientiously developed amplifications (which are not strictly required by the logic of the argument) in order to attract the interest and to persuade the reasonable faculties of an inexpert or an initially uninterested audience. Rhetoric deals with one speaker addressing a larger audience of people not specifically trained in the art of argument.
Logic and Rhetoric
Logic is the art of reasoning correctly. We study logic to understand the nature of language and thinking; to define terms, to make distinctions, to judge correctly, and to validate truth. Logic study encourages systematic and disciplined thinking.
As phonics is to reading, as grammar is to writing, so is logic to argumentation.
In the case of phonics and grammar, we learned the rules, and we can read and write, though not in every instance of reading and writing do we formally refer to the rules of phonics or grammar. Still, even in the absence of formally consulting those rules, the rules of phonics and grammar undergird the processes.
Likewise, in logic, there are formal rules for argumentation that make an argument valid. In logic, we learn to extract the premises behind the argument as well as the terms in each premise. We learn to evaluate whether an argument is sound.
Formal logic is a means of acquiring certainty about the validity and soundness of an argument, and it works well for math and certain aspects of science, but not with the same air-tight certainty and clarity in the case of historical, religious, or philosophical questions.
When Martin Cothran in Traditional Logic II ‘proves’, for example that Mary is the Mother of God, a complex theological issue has been simplified and reduced to the level of two premises and a conclusion.
Mary is the mother of Jesus (Premise 2)
Therefore Mary is the Mother of God (Conclusion)
Well, it is not that those who disagree with the conclusion do not understand the validity of the logic, but that they argue with the premises or the way the premises are used: Trinitarian Christians all believe that Jesus is God. And likewise all believe in Jesus’ birth from Mary. But what does it mean that Mary is the mother of Jesus? Does that mean that she is likewise the mother of all of the Trinity? If we call Mary the Mother of God, are we saying she is the mother of all the Trinity, that she was existing before all things, even before God the Father Himself? (This question was settled in the Early Church. Look up the Nestorian Heresy to find the full implications of this difficult question.)
It is not my aim with this post to shed light on this question, neither from a Protestant, nor from a Catholic perspective. We merely want to point out that even in such seemingly iron-clad cases, there is no agreement in many circles because we need to qualify or “complexify” what we mean by each premise and by the terms in each premise.
The Trinity in and of itself is an ‘ambiguity’ of three-in-one, and one-in three, so how can one ‘simplify’ and give a straight-forward answer as to the motherhood of ONE of the three-in-one as to whether that makes her the mother of all three? The premises need qualification before all can agree on the conclusion or even on what the conclusion means. Such is the case for much of Christianity. Careful definition of terms and elaboration of premises are required before we can even begin to operate with logic to any avail. (Yes, there is a right answer, but an answer that requires careful study of language and its use.)
Most political, philosophical, and historical questions are not simple to start with. Definitions of the basic terms are often complex and not agreed on. Any stated premise that is clearly defined is usually under a great deal of dispute, but worse than that, the answers to historical and political questions are usually not binary (meaning, they are not an either-or case).
In most human arguments there are a multiplicity of answers interwoven with each other, tangled and attached in funny ways that make formal logic impractical as a vehicle for argumentation. In most cases where we can indeed write a simple essay and use a formulary syllogistic approach, the argument is so simple that the premises or the conclusion are not really subject to dispute to start with. For example in the classic syllogism:
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
In matters of persuasion we are not dealing with the obvious. We are trying to reason about that which is disputed amongst men, and that alone implies that the answers are not obvious, the premises are not agreed on, and often the terms or the use of the terms used are under dispute as well.
What is an essay, but a written answer to a complex question that requires PERSUASION precisely because the answer is not agreed on, simple, or obvious? If the answer were obvious and certain, there would be no need for argumentation; everyone would be able to SEE it logically.
The many questions we ask in history, philosophy, and literature are questions that require persuasion precisely because they are not obvious. Therefore, the direct vehicle of employing formal syllogistic logic is often not a good way to answer those questions persuasively.
Formal logic and its vehicle, the syllogism, mostly seem to be useful in questions that are of the nature of ‘is or isn’t X’ of this or that nature. ‘This or that’ could be ‘clear, good, beneficial, possible, plausible’. Syllogisms are good at asking yes/no questions because you can formulate a syllogism that says:
X is Y.
Therefore X is clear.
But in most essay questions we are asking more complex questions, like
Why did the League of Nations fail?
or
Was slavery the cause of the Civil War?
In those cases, YES, we use reasoning to dig up arguments and to support our answers, but to dig down to extract a syllogism as a framework for the thesis proposition we are trying to support seems unnecessarily cumbersome, and in some cases, not at all helpful.
If we take the time to construct a syllogism with each premise in standard logical form that looks like this:
The League of Nations is a human institution that does not have the power to enforce what it stands for.
Therefore the League of Nations is an institution that failed.
Nowhere in Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Quintillian’s Institutes, or Cicero’s De Oratore do we see a classical model for constructing syllogisms to come up with all available means of persuasion in a speech or an essay. We are more likely to dig into Cicero’s topics of invention and define, differentiate, compare, exemplify, and so forth, to generate persuasive support for our work.
A SYLLOGISM is really meant as a slam dunk proof of certainty, and that we cannot generate in the context of disputable issues. The best we can do on issues that mankind in general disagrees on is to lean one way or another and try to persuade.
So, the issue is one of certainty, such as in mathematics where we clearly define our terms and deductively come to irrefutable conclusions. Formal logic can provide that certainty in those cases.
In contrast, rhetoric is meant to be persuasive in cases where certainty is not possible. Rhetoric is ‘second best’ in terms of certainty, but so many issues in life, in fact, most of the issues that matter most to us are issues that people and cultures differ on and therefore matters of persuasion. (This of course does not mean that YOU cannot personally be certain about something. It is merely asserting that mankind as a whole does not agree on many of the issues that matter.) The areas where we would love to be most certain are the ones that are the hardest to be certain about.
So to conclude, syllogisms can be useful. They are simple devices but so simple that while their structure is inherent in the work we do, they are so simple we hardly need to call attention to their existence.
To use a syllogism, the argument as in most judicial rhetoric cases, should be simple and clear. It has to be easy for a jury to see the issues and render a verdict. Furthermore, the matter of sentencing also should be clear so that justice has been served. We do not, in judicial rhetoric, want to render a nebulous judgment or pronounce an unfair sentence.
Lene