Pages 31-58 A Rulebook for Arguments Entry

I quite enjoyed reading this section from A Rulebook for Argumentation. Reflecting upon my last entry about Aristotle, particularly the part where I mentioned deductive and inductive reasoning, I feel this really enhanced my understanding of these (and more) types of argumentation.\

The author made the various types of arguments very clear and easy to understand. The author started with the basic concept of correlation, in which when A is consistently associated with B than A causes B, etc. This set the tone for the various forms which later follow, which I will discuss in a bit.

I cannot express how much I gained from the section on filling in the connections. What a simple concept! But the examples used REALLY illustrate the importance of being specific and using examples to bring home a point. I could say something simple like, “owning a dog makes me happy; my friends who do not own dogs are not as happy. Therefore, owning a  dog makes a person happy”.

 However, this is not as convincing as this: “owning a dog makes me happy; my friends who do not own dogs are not as happy. It makes sense that owning a dog makes one happier because having a pet provides a companionship which prevents loneliness. In addition, dog owners walk their dogs to exercise them, which also exercises the owner. Exercise is a healthy activity which promotes better overall mental and physical health for the owner. Therefore, people who own dogs are happy.”

Here, I have used examples and connections to make my point for fulfilling.

Some of the types of arguments mentioned are; deductive arguments, modus ponens, modus tollens, hypothetical syllogism, disjunctive syllogism, dilemma and Reductio ad absurdum. Each of these types sort of play on one another or build upon what another what does.

For example, modus ponens is described as “the form of putting” and modus tollens is “the form of taking.

Modus Ponens – If A than B

                                A

                                Therefore, B.

Modus Tollens   - If A than B

                                NOT-B

                                Therefore, NOT-A

Lastly, I liked the authors explanation of deductive arguments. “…a (properly formed) deductive argument is an argument of such a form that if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true too. Properly formed deductive arguments are called valid arguments” (Weston, 37).

Anthony Weston (1987) A rulebook for arguments.

Aristotle Entry

Well, I found the first part of the Aristotle hard to digest and can only imagine what I will be in for when I being his work, Rhetoric.  For now, I will stick to the first part of the reading.

It was nice to get an overview of Aristotle's beginnings and the array of subjects he both studied and taught. 

Here is a brief overview (skipping all of the components of anti-Macedonian feelings and such); 

Aristotle studied and later taught at Plato's Academy in Athens - a rather prestigious start to his career. Later, Aristotle went on to tutor Alexander the Great (son of Philip of Macedonia). Aristotle then started his own school in Athens.

This was the most easily digestible part of the reading. I waded through the various theories concerning rhetoric and tried as best I could to reach an understanding of it through Aristotle's views. To make this journal entry easier to read I will give a run down of what I thought were some of the key points...

A) Only scientific demonstration and formal logic can arrive at transcendent truth (144)

1. plato calls this "knowledge"
2. Rhetoric and Dialectic deal with subject of which no "true knowledge" can be reached

B) Aristotle divides rhetoric into two major categories 

1. Artistic Proofs- for which rhetoricians contruct the material (145)
1. ethos, pathos, logos
2. Inartistic Proofs- for which rhetoricians interpret exisitng material (145)

C) Ethos, Pathos, Logos

1. Logos - Logic...stresses the reasonableness of the rhetoricians argument (146)
2. Pathos - Pathetic...raises emotions favorable to rhetoricians position (146)
3. Ethos - Ethical...raises emotions favorable to rhetoricians moral character (146)

D) Logic is divided by Aristotle into 3 categories

1. Enthymeme - deductive argument 
2. Example - inductive 
3. Maxim - piece of received wisdom

Ugh. This is all i can extract at this moment without my brain exploding.