: Who, me?…What ______ said…
In the rough and tumble of the public sphere you’ll rarely hear pristine syllogistic arguments. The closest we come to these strict formulations is the enthymeme–what Aristotle called the rhetorical syllogism.
Human affairs are messy, and human truths are contingent. The enthymeme fits the persuasive needs of this reality in a way that the syllogism cannot.
The structure of an enthymeme is simple and generally follows two patterns:
Y is an example of X
Therefore, it follows that ZY is a reason for X
Therefore, it follows that Z
What’s fascinating about the enthymeme compared to the syllogism is that the former leaves something (X, Y, or Z, or any combination) for the audience to bring to the argument. A syllogism, on the other hand, is like an intellectual thug–you’re forced to accept the conclusion. The enthymeme allows you to draw your own conclusion, or supply one or more premises, depending upon what’s been left to your imagination.
In the textbook I use for EN106, the author says this about the enthymeme:
Enthymemes are powerful because they are based in community beliefs. Because of this, whether the reasoning…is sound or whether the statements it contains are true, sadly enough, often make little difference to the community’s acceptance of the argument. Enthymemes work when listeners or readers participate in constructing the argument–that is, if their prior knowledge is part of the argument, they are inclined to accept the entire argument if they are willing to accept the rhetorician’s use of their common, prior knowledge. For this reason, enthymematic arguments do not have to be spelled out completely. The rhetorician may omit premises or conclusions. The audience will enjoy supplying the missing premises for themselves, and may be more readily persuaded by the argument because they have participated in its construction.
That prior knowledge could be in error. It could be the result of propaganda. It could be a cultural myth. The truth or falsehood of what we “know” hardly matters to the construction and acceptance of enthymemes as long as it plays on what we believe.
Further, each of us may complete the enthymematic argument differently based on our individual experiences with the issue. Still further, elements of the rhetorical situation, kairos, and the rhetor’s use of ethical and pathetic appeals make reinforcing arguments of their own.
Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that an American politician makes a speech to the United Nations on an issue of world importance. That politician has certain persuasive intents. Perhaps some of those intents are anathema to certain parts of the audience. So, the politician does what politicians have been doing for at least the last 2,500 years of Western history–he uses the most appropriate tools of rhetoric to make his case. One of them is the enthymeme.
By allowing a segment of the audience to complete the arguments based on prior beliefs or myths, the politician does not have to spell out certain premises and conclusions.
And, when trouble strikes, the politician (and his friends in the pundit class) can, by appealing to simplistic literalism, willfully ignore the very tools (rhetoric) he used to effect persuasion, i.e. “_______ never said blah blah blah.”
Oh, yes he did.
Yet, in a debate, would it not be more pertinent to use the “pristine syllagism” as oppossed to the enthymeme?
Joshua…it depends upon the format and goals of the debate.
I suppose I mean, in general, a formal debate in which you know, undoubtedly, that your opponent will in no way publically concede, ergo distinguishing the public audience as the recipients of the intended persuasion. Furthermore, targeting your efforts to be consumed in a less manipulative and possibly more objective manner.
IOW…a debate like the ones we see in American politics, e.g. the current Democratic debates. The candidates are neither the audience nor the intended target of persuasion.
That’s the LAST place you want to whip out a string of syllogisms. TV doesn’t do propositional content well. Besides, Aristotle was correct (far more than he knew with the invention of TV): you can rapidly disarm a sober, logical argument with pathos or humor.
But if everyone in the world believes a mistruth that does not make it true. What foothold do we have on reality if the way something is presented is more “important” then the content and facts an argument represents. I understand we are somewhat talking about different issues, but there is a principle or reality I am attempting to allude to. I am in no way saying that the way something is presented should be(or more importantly, will be in a realistic sense)discounted. But is it not interesting that one can actually be, to different degrees, knowingly entertained into subjection, and defend mistruths using the shield of alluring presentation to deflect factual substance.
Joshua…man, you are fresh meat for my 106 class next semester
I understand your struggle to assert reality in this way. But if someone acts upon an untruth as reality, structures their thinking by it, then the untruth has the force of reality for them.
Re: Your final question. Yes, it is VERY interesting.
Your job for next semester will be to show me the distinguishing characteristic of rhetoric as opposed to manipulation (obviously this is determined by my particular definition of manipulation as carrying a negative conotation). For I fail to see how manipulation (with that being motive) carries any virtue of nobility.