Logic v. Rhetoric (Modern Enthymeme)


Kristen Seas ENGL 624/Sullivan Fall 2005 Purdue University	Logic v. Rhetoric: The separation of thought and language further leads to disciplinary division between logic and rhetoric, with the former science aimed at reasoning to reach truth, while the latter art serves only to convey that truth to others. We can see this as early as Locke, when he writes: "The ends of language in our discourse with others being chiefly these three: First, to make known one man's thoughts or ideas to another; Secondly, to do it with as much ease and quickness as possible; and, Thirdly, thereby to convey the knowledge of things: language is either abused of deficient, when it fails of any of these three." (Bk III, Ch X, §22) The major rhetorical treatises coming out of the Scottish/British tradition all segregate the province of rhetoric from that of logic or other forms of knowledge production, seeing rhetoric as merely the conveying of a truth discovered elsewhere. "If then it is the business of logic to evince the truth, to convince an auditory, which is the province of eloquence, is but a particular application of of the logician's art. […] "The art of the logician is accordingly, in some sense, universal; the art of the grammarian is always particular and local." (173) - George Campbell, 1776 "Knowledge and science must furnish the materials that form the body and substance of any valuable composition. Rhetorical serves to add the polish; and we know that none but firm and solid bodies can be polished well" (32). - Hugh Blair, 1783 *"[…] the knowledge of the subjects on which the Orator is to speak, constitutes no part of the art of Rhetoric, thought it be essential to its successful employment." (Rhetoric* 281)** Whately is even more explicit when we claims that "Rhetoric (in conformity with the very just and philosophical view of Aristotle) is an off-shoot from Logic" (Rhetoric 281). "The process of investigation must be supposed completed, and certain conclusions arrived at by that process, before he begins to impart his ideas to others in a treatise or lecture; the object of which must of course be to prove the justness of those conclusions." (Rhetoric 281) - Richard Whately, 1828
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

Logic v. Rhetoric:

The separation of thought and language further leads to disciplinary division between logic and rhetoric, with the former science aimed at reasoning to reach truth, while the latter art serves only to convey that truth to others.

We can see this as early as Locke, when he writes:

"The ends of language in our discourse with others being chiefly these three: First, to make known one man's thoughts or ideas to another; Secondly, to do it with as much ease and quickness as possible; and, Thirdly, thereby to convey the knowledge of things: language is either abused of deficient, when it fails of any of these three." (Bk III, Ch X, §22)

The major rhetorical treatises coming out of the Scottish/British tradition all segregate the province of rhetoric from that of logic or other forms of knowledge production, seeing rhetoric as merely the conveying of a truth discovered elsewhere.

"If then it is the business of logic to evince the truth, to convince an auditory, which is the province of eloquence, is but a particular application of of the logician's art. […] "The art of the logician is accordingly, in some sense, universal; the art of the grammarian is always particular and local." (173)

- George Campbell, 1776

"Knowledge and science must furnish the materials that form the body and substance of any valuable composition. Rhetorical serves to add the polish; and we know that none but firm and solid bodies can be polished well" (32).

- Hugh Blair, 1783

"[…] the knowledge of the subjects on which the Orator is to speak, constitutes no part of the art of Rhetoric, thought it be essential to its successful employment." (Rhetoric 281)

Whately is even more explicit when we claims that "Rhetoric (in conformity with the very just and philosophical view of Aristotle) is an off-shoot from Logic" (Rhetoric 281).

"The process of investigation must be supposed completed, and certain conclusions arrived at by that process, before he begins to impart his ideas to others in a treatise or lecture; the object of which must of course be to prove the justness of those conclusions." (Rhetoric 281)

- Richard Whately, 1828

Logic v. Rhetoric:

Table of Contents: