The concept of logos, as discussed in chapter 5 of Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students seems fairly straightforward, although there are a lot of terms to keep track of in the discussion of logos. Perhaps the discussion on logos made more sense because we had already worked with it briefly when we used the worksheet on appeals to identify ethos, pathos and logos in the “Real Men of Genius” advertisement.
What first struck me, though, as I began to read the chapter was the quote attributed to Aristotle that introduces the chapter: “In some oratorical styles examples prevail, in others enthymemes; and in like manner, some orators are better at the former and some at the latter. Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the other kind, but those which rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause” (158).
So as I read, I was searching for the answer as to why the enthymeme was given the place of honor in argument, with the greatest potential for stirring the masses. Crowley and Hawhee attempt to address the issue through their discussion of deductive reasoning and induction. To oversimplify, the enthymeme, serving as the basis of deductive reasoning, provides stronger, more convincing proof of the likelihood that a conclusion drawn from an argument is accurate.
Why is that? Well, looking at the structure of both types of reasoning, we see that induction relies on observation of specific examples that are then viewed collectively in order to draw a conclusion, making this conclusion, at best, only as good as the examples which produced it. It would make sense then that the more related examples one has, the more probable or certain the conclusion’s truth or likelihood becomes. On the other hand, it would also seem that despite a significant number of observable examples, the presence of one example or case where the conclusion is brought into question would seriously weaken the inductive argument. For example, say a group of scientists run a study to test the effects of a new drug. Using mice as their subject, they run 50 trials. In 49 of those trials, the mice show no signs of ill effects. The scientists may be feeling pretty confident, at this point, in assuming the safety of the drug. However, in the 50th trial, the mice sprout excessive ear hair and their tails fall off. Assuming a controlled environment, this would deflate the good feelings those scientists had to this point and would also put a damper on a speedy pathway for this drug to the marketplace. Inductive argument, therefore, seems harder to prove. Crowley and Hawhee seem to sum this up when they say, “If a rhetor must begin with examples, she should include several; however, if she uses them last, in support of an enthymeme, one example will do” (181).
Deductive argument, with its reliance on enthymematic patterns, seems to offers a more certain conclusion because it is based on known or accepted truths, often commonplaces. With deduction, then, a conclusion is based on how well a particular instance relates to or fits the generally accepted premise. I guess it could be likened to hypothesizing, with the hypothesis more probable as long as a clear relationship between major and minor premises is established. The leap to a conclusion is a swifter and straighter path than with induction. Of course, at the heart of deductive reasoning is the characterization of the major premise as an accepted belief or truth. When the believability of the major premise is called into question (a fallacy is presented as truth), the soundness of the argument, too, becomes questionable. Okay, so I guess I can begin to see Aristotle’s point.
Another idea that caught my attention in this chapter was the authors’ distinction between the examples used in inductive reasoning and the rhetorical example. They mark this distinction by establishing the purpose of each example. In inductive reasoning the examples are given to strengthen a generalization. Rhetorical examples, as Crowley and Hawhee describe them, are aimed at evoking a more emotional response through the use of sensory triggers. To me this indicates that there is an underlying pathetic appeal at play as well in these examples. Perhaps this is why, as Crowley and Hawhee suggest, the rhetorical example in modern rhetoric carries much sway (172).
The final observation I found myself making was in regard to the frequent references to audience that were made throughout the chapter. “A rhetor should try to determine whether his audience has any preconceived opinions that are relevant to his point” (183). “Arguments from sign appeal to the daily experiences that we share with members of our audience” (185). “…much depends on the character of the audience and the generally received opinion…” (Quintillian, qtd. in Crowley & Hawhee 191). It is clear that the role of audience cannot be underestimated. The audience plays a role in terms of how one structures the argument, what type of reasoning is used, what evidence is best used to support the argument, and so on.
Oh, I almost forgot; I recently came across this cartoon in a text I have at school and thought it seemed fitting to our discussion on logos. Hope you appreciate the humor: http://shemesh.larc.nasa.gov/fm/fm-humor-penguins.html
No comments:
Post a Comment