TERM PAPER - A+ WORK Required. Zero Plagiarism. Every Single Instruction Followed in line with Grading Rubric

THE ENTHYMEME IN ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC 22

Term Project: Judicial Rhetoric (The Enthymeme in Aristotle's Rhetoric)

Yolanda McNeil

ENGL 570 Term Paper

Liberty University

Introduction

Research Purpose

This research paper provides an analysis of how Aristotle ascribes to the enthymeme. That will be achieved from the perception of argumentation theory in explaining how enthymeme has presented in different perspectives. The advantages of argumentation theory include the following: it supplements the dominant logical approach presented in 2 highly enlightened researches by Burnyeat (1994) which emphasizes the question of logical validity of the link between the premise and deduction. Secondly, that method is better calculated to outline parallels in contemporary ‘enthymeme issues. Comment by Author: Has been Or “is” Comment by Author: Spell out numbers under 100 Comment by Author: punctuation

The research intends to use an argumentative theory which is the study of how deductions can be arrived at through reasonable thinking, that is, soundly, claim based or not on-premises. It comprises rules of logic and inference in speeches and premises. In combination with rhetoric theory that traces its roots back to antique Greece, where “rhetoric” denoted the art of public speaking as it advanced under the statutory régime, especially in the 4th and 5th-century Athenian democracy. Comment by Author: So are you saying that you’re using argumentation for this paper? Or are you using argumentation theory as the context for enthymeme?

The ordinary citizen lacked the wide-ranging knowledge of the law and its procedures that the professional lawyer did, however, it was great to his advantage to have wide-ranging knowledge of the tactics of defense and prosecution. As a result, the schools of rhetoric did a successful business in training the layperson to defend himself in court or to prosecute an offending neighbor. As such, Judicial rhetoric promotes justice and identifies injustice by appealing to the law. 'Forensic speech accepts as given the laws of the polis,' so the section on judicial rhetoric uses enthymemes to adjust 'particular cases to general laws. Comment by Author: Comma splice Comment by Author: ThoughCo Comment by Author: This information comes directly from ThoughtCo and is stated in the same way. As I stated in your outline, ThoughtCo isn’t really a peer-reviewed secondary source; instead, it gives more of a generally accepted overview of content. Also, this is also a significant issue of plagiarism as you’ve used material from another site and not cited it correctly. I commented on this in the outline and warned that it needed to be removed from the final paper.

Research Questions

This project seeks to answer the following questions

· What is the implicit premise in the term enthymeme?

This question can be examined by considering what can be seen as the clearest case that enthymeme can be reduced to logical syllogism, as it happens in the context.

· To what degree can people attribute to the enthymeme a syllogistic framework, in the sense of the previous analytics?

This question has been asked several times in the enthymeme’s works of literature in Aristotle's Rhetoric. Currently, the answers to that query still play a critical role in determining one’s stance in connection to Solmsen.

· How can one explicate the noteworthy monopoly place of the semeia (signs) and eikota (probabilities) in programmatic passages of the Rhetoric?

The Enthymeme Explained

Aristotle explained that enthymeme occurs in an argument where certain premises or things are not explicitly stated. The 3 properties that Aristotle ascribes to enthymeme include the following: the first one is that enthymemes deal with mainly non-essential issues, namely human actions and in this case are derived from signs and probabilities (Braet, 1999). Secondly, an enthymeme is used because of the benefit of the uneducated audience, and this makes a succinct formulation more suitable. Furthermore, as accustomed presumptions can be left unexpressed, an enthymeme is usually derived from a few statements as compared to premises (Pfister, & Woods, 2016). Lastly, just like dialectical sullogimoi, enthymemes are considered to be the kind of sullogismoi whereby common and relatively formal topics as contrary to material and special topics like idia; even though enthymemes from common topics are perceived as more characteristic of rhetoric (McAdon, 2003). Comment by Author: This flagged as coming from another source. While you do have a citation at the end of this, the wording follows the original source. Without quotation marks, this is another form of plagiarism.

Aristotle defined the enthymeme as a body of persuasion, suggesting that everything is an accident or an addition to the core of the persuasion procedure. The rationale why the enthymeme, as rhetorical demonstration or proof must be considered to be core to the rhetorical procedure of persuasion is that people are easily convinced when they think that anything must be demonstrated (Bitzer, 1959). Therefore, this rudimentary concept of rhetorical demonstration appears to be like this: to create a target one has to believe that b, the speaker should in the first place choose a sentence c or some sentences c1 … cn that is previously adopted by the target group. Secondly, Aristotle is supposed to show that c might be derivative of b or c1 … bn, using b or b1 … bn as premises (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). Due to the fact that the target individuals form their opinions according to rational standards, they will accept c as soon as they are able to comprehend that c can be verified based on their own views. Comment by Author: This entire section is taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You have citations within the paragraph, but they do not align with the material presented. They are citations included in the website’s reference list, but these statements are not coming from the sources you’ve identified here.

Nevertheless, in considering rhetorical framework there are 2 different aspects that the dialectician should have in mind if he/she desires to be a rhetorician in the future, and if the dialectical argument is to develop to be an effective enthymeme. Firstly, the distinctive themes of public speeches do not—as a dialectic subject and theoretic viewpoint—belong to the stuff that is essentially the case, but is amongst the stuff that is the goal of pragmatic discussion and can as well as be otherwise (Braet, 1999). Secondly, as contrary to well-trained dialecticians the readers of public speeches are categorized by a logical inadequacy; apart from that, the jury or assembly members are not familiarized with subsequent a lengthier chain of interpretations. Thus, enthymemes should not be as specific and detailed as a scientific justification and must be brief as compared to a normal or usual dialectical argument (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). This, nevertheless, is not to state that the enthymeme is described by brevity and incompleteness. Instead, it is considered to be an indication of a well-implemented enthymeme that the content and the number of its premises are attuned to the intelligence of the audience in public; however, an enthymeme that fails to integrate these qualities is still considered to be enthymeme. Comment by Author: This is also from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Aristotle explained that the enthymeme regularly has fewer premises than some other inferences. Due to the fact that most translators refer the name ‘sullogismos’ to the syllogistic theory, where an appropriate inference has two premises only, those sentences have resulted to the common understanding that Aristotle describes the enthymeme as a sullogismos in where two premises have been repressed, in other words as a shortened, unfinished syllogism (Aristotle’s Rhetoric, 2010). But certainly, the cited passages do not try to provide the right enthymeme’s definition, nor does the name ‘sullogismos’ essentially mean inferences with two premises only (Weidemann, 1989). Correctly comprehended, both passages revolve around choosing the right premise, not about intellectual incompleteness. The comment that enthymeme regularly has fewer premises concludes the argument of 2 likely errors the speaker could make. As such, one can draw deductions from stuff that has formerly been construed or from stuff that is yet to be construed (Cronkhite, 1966). The last technique is not persuasive, because the premises are yet to be accepted, or are yet to be introduced. The earlier technique is challenging too: if the speaker is supposed to introduce the desired premises by the other conclusion, and the premises of this pre-conclusion too, one shall come to an end with a longer chain of conclusions (Cronkhite, 1966). Arguments that have many inferential phases are very common in dialectical exercise, but it is impossible to expect the public speaking audience to follow those longer arguments. That is the reason Aristotle explains that the enthymeme has been and must be from a few premises. Comment by Author: This comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Enthymeme in Legal Reasoning Structure

This type of reasoning is deductive which is through the use of rhetoric syllogism that Aristotle termed enthymeme. An enthymeme is almost the same as legal reasoning structure: universal rule or state general apply it to a specific circumstance (the facts) and then reach a deduction (Braet, 1999). What differentiates an enthymeme from scientific or strictly logical syllogism flows from the differences in their spheres. In science and math, the syllogism deals with universally true conclusions (Conley, 1984). In rhetoric and in all fields applicable to rhetoric, for example, politics and law, arguments are based on probabilities and likelihoods, not certainties.

The kind of probability that Aristotle is discussing is not just frequency or commonness, but instead, it is the probability where “whatever, among things that can be other than what they are, therefore it is so linked to that in respect to which it is possible as universal is to a specific (McAdon, 2003). According to Aristotle, something is possible when it is a specific example of a general rule. To be certain, general rules are general since they mirror frequent or common occurrences, but the enthymematic probability is, to Aristotle, predicated on frequency as such, but instead on the link of the generally factual statement to specific example (McAdon, 2003).

Even if it is possible to establish and express the information being depended on for inference, it would tremendously tedious to do that. Some of the US citizens find it easy to understand the statement such as “the marathoner won a silver medal” to denote that marathoner was the second one in the race as specified by Burnyeat (1994). Unspecified is premises like the silver medals are awarded for the second place; the marathoner was participating in the race; second place denotes that the marathoner was beaten by the first marathoner in the race; the race had other participants; it was an official competition and not just buddies competing for the sake of leisure (Braet, 1999).

It is worthy to note how the Zande teenager’s elucidation for the witchery and infection makes sense within the culture of Zande, although it doesn’t make sense under present western ideals of common sense or from western perception of human activity and human nature (individuals at some point stub their toes) and infection (some wounds get infected and never heal quickly) (Kennedy, 1991). Knowing about the culture of Zande would affect how a person would go about the issue of introducing some biology-based medicinal approaches to treat them.

The Enthymeme’s Content Focusing on Semeia and Eikota Comment by Author: This is Braet’s 1999 section title.

Semeion is also defined as a premise of enthymeme in his prior analytics and. This means semeion is an event or situation which denotes accompanying event or circumstance (Hitchcock, 1985). Aristotle uses illustrations that are principal although not solely concerned with some signs. He differentiates between signs whereby signified and sign continuously go together, this kind of semeion has a distinct term: the tekmerion (necessary signs) whereby signified and sign frequently go together (there is no distinct term for this kind, but it is denoted as semeion in the strict sense) (McAdon, 2003). Aristotle noted that the tekmeria takes place only intermittently.

Aristotle mentioned semeia and eikota first time in the rhetoric when he explained that those are premises where enthymemes are derived. In Aristotle’s opinion, this is due to the fact that the inferences of enthymemes are issues that are rarely necessary for other words human actions (Burnyeat, 1996). Seemingly these are considered to be actions with which the three kinds of speech are concerned: intolerable or exemplary acts, policy measures and acts which might be unfair (Walton, 2008). In his explanation, Aristotle explains that the fact that inferences can only be reached based on premises that belong to similar classes (essential inferences based on essential premises, and commonly non-necessary inferences based on commonly non-essential premises), the premises should have a principally non-essential content (Mailly, 2016). Based on this, Aristotle considers this kind of non-essential premise is seemingly created by semeia and eikota. Comment by Author: This section is taken directly from Braet 1999

Even though Aristotle is connecting the nature of the premises and the nature of the conclusions, what he explains about the nature of rhetorical premises and inferences is not totally in keeping with the entire rhetoric (Hitchcock, 1985). Different from what is proposed, Aristotle's conclusions and premises are not completely of expressive nature. In fact, the content is usually considered to be more evaluative. Even though other authors have focused on solving the problem of premises and conclusions by declaring eikos as a normative statement and factual probability, this seems to be incredible based on Aristotle's descriptions (McAdon, 2003). Aristotle sticks to tradition in his eikos’ description by stating that it is mainly a phenomenon in the whole globe, or at any rate of view of the real globe: “that which is recognized to commonly take place or not happen, or mostly is not the case (Burnyeat, 1996).” Comment by Author: This is also following Braet 1999

In eikos’ case, the are two types of semeion in the bigger sense are mentioned too in rhetoric as rhetorical premises and in prior analytics, as protasis apodeiktike e anankaia e endoxos, this means, a demonstrative premise which is either generally accepted or necessary (Braet 1999). Based on this interpretation, there is just a single deduction possible: as premises, semeia and eikota have descriptive content (Mailly, 2016). This means they would also appear to be suitable for arguing the kind of rhetorical deductions which Aristotle originally had in mind about Rhetoric- issues which unlike necessities only take place always, or are possible. But it is pertinent to look at the four examples of enthymemes explained above to distinguish if Aristotle did not regard either the premises or the conclusions of enthymemes as limited to descriptive claims (Walton, 2001). Out of the four examples, only the second one has purely descriptive assertions.

Some of the examples, which can probably also be perceived as instances enthymemes are in normative nature. Moreover, in the several places where Aristotle mentions issues of rhetorical (staseis and initially was referred to as amphosbiftiseis), he proves that he understands that it is just incomparable instances that rhetorical inferences refer to descriptive queries (Mailly, 2016). Therefore, as regards the content of conclusions and premises, the rhetoric would also seem to have no consistency. In this case, Aristotle explains that the orator ought to have premises linked to the ends for conclusions to be reached of the 3 kinds of speech, on the other hand, he reminds the audience that premises of enthymemes are semeia, eikota, tekmeria (Smith, 2007). In the first place, no inferences can be attained concerning tell. In other words, whether the proposal is not or is favorable, an individual’s behavior praiseworthy is an act considered unfair, based on this kind of descriptive premises (Hitchcock, 1985). Furthermore, in his premise’s treatment, Aristotle doesn’t limit to eikota tekmeria as well as semeia though this is frequently maintained based on different viewpoints or perspectives.

There is similarly the likelihood that Aristotle has given much preference to semeia and eikota as enthymemes from the category of the argument that seems to be the easiest way to decrease to diagnostic syllogisms (Smith, 2007). In this case, current information actually gives the audience a better concept of the several contents of rhetorical premises (Burnyeat, 1996). Aristotle precisely states that the enthymeme from a non-necessary sign is the only one of the numerous potentials. As a result, because of the random treatment, it is not possible to make a thorough declaration on the scope of the contents of rhetorical premises. One is motivated to state that: the kind of premise which could be utilized in the 3 categories of speeches, but the simple fact that Aristotle is continually sharing fictional illustrations makes his stance hard to determine.

The Enthymeme’s Formulation Focusing on Implicit Premise Comment by Author: This is the same title as a section in Braet 1999 Comment by Author: This is taken directly from Braet 1999

In considering the issue of an implicit premise, there are several views that can be summed up as follows. According to Aristotle, an enthymeme is considered to be a syllogism that has an indirect or implied premise. This would later become the standard definition. However, this definition and interpretation are not taken seriously (Kennedy, 1991). Secondly, Aristotle explained that an Enthymeme might contain the premise that that has not been expressed, which is not so essential. Furthermore, where Aristotle is concerned, it is improper to speak about implicit premises: the several enthymemes with just a single premise in Rhetoric must not be supplemented by the addition of an unexpected premise (McAdon, 2003).

There are 4 different examples which presented as correct enthymemes. However, these differences are related to the sources and they are resultants of existing, in most cases fictional sources, contrary to the ones that have ostensibly been invented (Hitchcock, 1985). Firstly, the formulation difference lies in the enthymeme’s style. This is where some of these examples are formulated in a factual way. Thus, the audience is able to understand that the impact of some of the enthymemes is not even primarily to the structure and content of the argument, but instead to the arresting devising (Walton, 2001). With concern to this literary feature, it can be concluded that the outcomes of the enthymeme’s description-both after and before Aristotle is a striking devising.

Generally, Aristotle used enthymeme in only two senses. Aristotle employed the word for arguments that exist in all authentic manuscripts, and which are affected by stylistic formula (Hitchcock, 1985). This means it is impossible to decrease the examples to syllogistic formulae of arguments based on Aristotle’s reasoning. In the framework of the interpreted examples, there is no reference to any pushy literary effect. As the initial logic according to pre-Aristotelian tradition and the second one with syllogistic of Aristotle, which was established comparatively late, a reader gets the impression that what people see in that context is an old and recent case (Mailly, 2016).

Structuring Enthymemes in Terms of Syllogistic and Topical Comment by Author: Braet’s 1999 section heading

It is possible to discover that Aristotle does not seem to have made this dissimilarity concerning structural levels so that knowing this difference involves a relic. However, according to McAdon (2003), this is not supposed to be the case if one uses the difference as a logical or diagnostic tool, without explicitly accrediting it to Aristotle. In the re-interpretation of the passages as either syllogistic or contemporary enthymemes are overriding (Raphael, 1974). In the first passage argumentation, structures play a critical role, but direct kinds of discussions are similarly mentioned. In the subsequent passage, the converse is the instance.

A topical structure, just like its contemporary concept and as argumentation structure is different from a logical framework. What needs to be made clear is that that the two categories of the structure are not substitutes, but instead deal with dissimilar features of discussion (Raphael, 1974). Then, from the perspective of contemporary argumentation philosophers, it is easy to explain how topical as well as logical structure plays a critical role in the topical enthymemes.

The Enthymemes Underpinning Brown V Board of Education

The issue in Brown’s case was whether the argument of the plaintiff was correct and fourteenth amendment followed about “separated public learning institutions are not 'equal’ and it is impossible to make them 'equal,' and that thus they are denied the equal protection of the rules and regulations.” Several premises surround this claim, and it is exciting to tease most of them out. The enthymeme explains 3 of its premises: separated public learning institutions aren’t equal, segregated learning institutions can’t be made equal and the fourteenth amendment demands that the entire public get equal protection of the rules and regulations (Raphael, 1974). The inference that is emphasized to be followed in these premises is that having segregated schools breaches the equivalent protection act.

Unspecified, but comprehended premises consist of the following: the public learning institutions are created by rules and regulations; the rules and regulations relating to education are encompassed within the concept of protection of people (in fact this was broadly argued, but in this paper, only one unstated premise is quoted) (Mailly, 2016). In this case, it was overtly addressed by Brown Court that fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to the countries; that there is “race”; that some learning institutions were isolated by race; that the past settled cases allowing segregation but equivalent education was incorrectly decided; that the so-called separation is a malicious; that parity or equivalence is an issue of mind and heart, not just factually quantifiable criteria (Raphael, 1974).

Conclusion

In discussing the enthymeme in Aristotle's Rhetoric one can see a change of pronunciation from argumentation concept to logic. Originally the attention of Aristotle seems to be focused on categories of the considerable relationship between a premise and conclusion. His arguments or ideas of departure were ideas and points that he discovered in practice. This consists of a topical approach that is explained by quoted illustrations. In the last marginal---ease, there is an effort to construe the enthymeme in terms of prescribed syllogistic figures. As a result, the variety of definite arguments are laid on the Procrustean bed of definite syllogistics: the syllogistic method, demonstrated with devised illustrations from the syllogistic. While it is logical that Aristotle wanted to make his clear findings of syllogistics appropriate for the evaluation and analysis of rhetorical argumentation, from the perspective of argumentation concept, that was an exceptionally doubtful initiative.

Yolanda,

I know this is not the comments you wish to see at the end of the paper, but I must be very clear that this is a serious issue. I was concerned when you submitted your outline last week, which is why I stressed the need to significantly revise the content and work with a research librarian. I’m not sure if you felt overwhelmed and decided this was the only option as you finished the course, but the work submitted here has consequences.

I cannot stress enough that in order for you to be successful in this program, you need to make sure you avoid any instances of plagiarism. Work with the research librarian to help you not only find sources, but integrate them into your paper. The online writing center is another resource available to students to help students use sources.

I promise you that I do not enjoy situations of plagiarism or having to write comments such as this; however, I also know it is necessary to help you understand this is not the step you want to take in academia.

If you have questions, you can contact me via email.

References

Aristotle’s Rhetoric. (2010, February 1). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/

Barnes, J. (1981). "Proof and the Syllogism." In E. Berti (ed.), Aristotle on Science: The Posterior Analytics.' Padova: Antenore, 17-59. Comment by Author: Title of a book? If so, italicize this. Comment by Author: Journal? Or publisher information?

Burnyeat, M.F. (1994). "Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion." In D.J. Furley and A. Nehamas (eds.), Aristotle's Rhetoric. Philosophical Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3-55.

Burnyeat, M.F. (1996). "Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Rationality of Rhetoric." In A. Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 88-115. Comment by Author: italicize

Conley, Th.J. (1984). "The Enthymeme in Perspective." Quarterly Journal of Speech 70, 168-187. Comment by Author: italicize

Cronkhite, G. (1966). “The Enthymeme as Deductive Rhetorical Argument.” In Western Speech Journal 30: 129–134

Hitchcock, David, (1985). "Enthymematic Arguments." informal Logic 7, 83-97. Comment by Author: italicize

Mailly, J. G. (2016). Using enthymemes to fill the gap between logical argumentation and revision of abstract argumentation frameworks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08789.

Pfister, D. S., & Woods, C. S. (2016). The unnaturalistic enthymeme: Figuration, interpretation, and critique after digital mediation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 52(4), 236-253.

Walton, D. (2008). The three bases for the enthymeme: A dialogical theory. Journal of Applied Logic, 6(3), 361-379.

Walton, D. N. (2001). Enthymemes, common knowledge, and plausible inference. Philosophy & rhetoric, 34(2), 93-112.