Main Contentions of Project (Modern Enthymeme)


Kristen Seas ENGL 624/Sullivan Fall 2005 Purdue University	Main Contentions of Project: Key distinction is the separation of thought and language, with the former preceding the approximations of the latter Separation of thought and language leads to division between logic and rhetoric, with the former aimed at reasoning to reach truth, while the latter serves only to convey that truth to others Argument, though a branch of rhetoric (even the branch if rhetoric is distinguished from eloquence) is solely concerned with reason, an appeal to logic/understanding, in contrast to persuasion's appeal to the passions Argument is the expression in language of reasoning, whose underlying form is universally syllogistic even if the argument is not fully expressed as a syllogism YET ... Some contest the universality of syllogistic reasoning Enthymeme is an abridged argument and elliptical expression of the syllogism, as can be seen in the logical definitions of the concept by the 19th century Thus ... In order to understand how enthymeme was moved squarely into logic, we might follow the above trajectory backwards in its implications for the definition of enthymeme itself as it is influenced by these developments in modern theories of discourse: Enthymeme is an expression of the same reasoning found in all arguments, not its own special kind of argument Enthymeme, as an argument, is an appeal to reason, not the passions Enthymeme, as argument appealing to reason, is a logical form, even if truncated by rhetoric as it expresses the argument in language However ... There is one piece of this puzzle that's missing: a lost translation of the concept that can be traced back to Aristotle but does not appear in the formalist definitions that seem to root enthymeme within logic. Where has this alternative conception of enthymeme gone? Where does it survive? And how does it affect our current understanding of the enthymeme as an element of rhetoric? Such questions can't be answered here, but will be the object of further study as this project progresses.
Table of Contents: Project Description 19th c. Logical Definitions of Enthymeme Main Contentions of Project: Thought v. Language Logic v. Rhetoric Argument and Reason Syllogistic Reasoning Enthymeme as Abridged Argument Lost Translation - Missing Definition of Enthymeme Works Cited

Kristen Seas
ENGL 624/Sullivan
Fall 2005
Purdue University

Main Contentions of Project:

Key distinction is the separation of thought and language, with the former preceding the approximations of the latter

Separation of thought and language leads to division between logic and rhetoric, with the former aimed at reasoning to reach truth, while the latter serves only to convey that truth to others

Argument, though a branch of rhetoric (even the branch if rhetoric is distinguished from eloquence) is solely concerned with reason, an appeal to logic/understanding, in contrast to persuasion's appeal to the passions

Argument is the expression in language of reasoning, whose underlying form is universally syllogistic even if the argument is not fully expressed as a syllogism

YET ... Some contest the universality of syllogistic reasoning
Enthymeme is an abridged argument and elliptical expression of the syllogism, as can be seen in the logical definitions of the concept by the 19th century

Thus ...

In order to understand how enthymeme was moved squarely into logic, we might follow the above trajectory backwards in its implications for the definition of enthymeme itself as it is influenced by these developments in modern theories of discourse:

Enthymeme is an expression of the same reasoning found in all arguments, not its own special kind of argument

Enthymeme, as an argument, is an appeal to reason, not the passions

Enthymeme, as argument appealing to reason, is a logical form, even if truncated by rhetoric as it expresses the argument in language

However ...

There is one piece of this puzzle that's missing: a lost translation of the concept that can be traced back to Aristotle but does not appear in the formalist definitions that seem to root enthymeme within logic. Where has this alternative conception of enthymeme gone? Where does it survive? And how does it affect our current understanding of the enthymeme as an element of rhetoric? Such questions can't be answered here, but will be the object of further study as this project progresses.

Main Contentions of Project:

Table of Contents: