Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

A. Yes, I am thoroughly persuaded of it; since the goodness and righteousness of God, as governor of the world, cannot be made to appear without it.

It should be borne in mind that this, like the previous method, does not, strictly speaking, claim to present proof, though it is frequently effective in gaining mental conquests. The artful orator often. resorts to interrogation because he has no proof. He rapidly introduces various inquiries, stating and restating them, until he has a new question, though still seeming to adhere to the one at issue. His opponent, however, easily explodes the fallacy by simply demanding a return to the question, or by introducing a series of corresponding counter questions. The following, which passed between a Christian believer and an infidel physician, is illustrative :

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"The doctor said, 'There is no soul,' and asked, 'Did you ever see a soul?' 'No,' said the Christian. Did you ever hear a soul?' 'No.' 'Did you ever smell a soul?' 'No.' 'Did you ever taste a soul?' 'No.' 'Did you ever feel a soul?' 'Yes,' said the man, 'I feel I have one within me.' 'Well,' said the doctor, there are four senses against one; you have only one on your side.' 'Very well,' said the Christian. 'Did you ever see a pain?' 'No.' 'Did you ever hear a pain?' 'No.' 'Did you ever smell a pain?' 'No.' 'Did you ever taste a pain?' 'No.' 'Did you ever feel a pain?' 'Yes.' 'Well,' continued the Christian gentleman, 'there

are four senses against one; you have only one on your side, therefore there is no such thing as pain.' See other examples in Xenophon's Memorabilia of Socrates.

[ocr errors]

e. Reasoning by conversion of terms. By this method the speaker repeats a proposition in another form for the purpose of deepening the impression and generating conviction. Thus it is said, "You must all die; for you are all mortal;" or, "Every man is an animal; for man is included in the animal kingdom." It is clear that these are rhetorical assertions, not logical proofs. "The fact asserted in the conclusion is either the very same fact, or a part of the fact asserted in the original proposition." Yet nevertheless these repeated statements are often successful in deepening the conviction. Mill thinks that there is no more important intellectual habit, nor any the cultivation of which falls more strictly within the province of the art of logic, than that of discerning rapidly and surely the identity of an assertion when disguised under diversity of language. See also sophistical reasoning, page 213.

66

f. Reasoning syllogistically. "In a legitimate syllogism," says Mill, it is essential that there should be three, and no more than three, terms; namely, the subject and predicate of the conclusion, and another called the middle term, which must be found in both premises, since it is by means of it that the other two terms are to be connected together. The predicate of the conclusion is called the major term

of the syllogism; the subject of the conclusion is called the minor term. As there can be but three terms, the major and minor terms must each be found in one, and only one, of the premises, together with the middle term which is in them both. The

premise which contains the middle term and the major term is called the major premise; that which contains the middle term and the minor term is called the minor premise."

This method of framing an argument was regarded anciently as the only sure mode of reasoning. It is based upon the principle that whatever is true of any genus is true of all the species included under it; and that any two things agreeing with a third must agree with each other. The syllogism is very useful in exact statements and in detecting fallacies. Strictly speaking, this form of reasoning does not concern itself with the truth or falsity of the propositions stated; it simply guards the form of statement, demanding that when the leading propositions are conceded, the conclusion will be obvious and inevitable. Berkeley, Spinoza, and Hume are faultless in their reasoning, if their premises are granted. "Their deductions," as Coleridge remarks, "constitute a chain of adamant.”

Every statement accompanied with the reason why it is made will be found to contain the elements of syllogistic reasoning; therefore, most books and speeches, having as their basis statements and reasons, may be reduced first to compound and then to simple syllogisms. The student may reduce

John ix. 16, and 30-33, to three propositions, the last of which is deduced from the other two. Thus, also, treat the argument in Butler's Analogy.

g. Reasoning enthymematically. The enthymeme differs from the syllogism in this, that one of the premises of the argument is suppressed. Hence it is said that the enthymeme is a rhetorical syllogism, "because it holds the same relation to rhetoric which the syllogism holds to logic. The syllogism has always its regular proposition and conclusion, and establishes by means of all its parts that which it has proposed. The enthymeme is satisfied if merely what is stated in it be understood."

The syllogism is stated thus:

Whatever thinks is a spiritual substance. The mind of man thinks. Therefore the mind of man is a spiritual substance.

The enthymeme would be stated thus:

Whatever thinks is a spiritual substance. Therefore the mind of man is a spiritual substance. Or, the mind thinks and is therefore a spiritual substance. This, it will be noticed, is the form of speech ordinarily employed.

h. Reasoning soritically. This form of argument consists of several propositions so arranged that the predicate of each proposition that precedes forms the subject of the one that follows, while the concluding proposition unites its predicate with the subject of the first. The following is an example : "The mind is a thinking substance; a thinking substance is a spirit; a spirit has no composition of

parts; that which has no composition of parts is indissoluble; that which is indissoluble is immortal: Therefore the mind is immortal."

i. Reasoning oratorically. This is the form of argumentation, which wields the truths and facts. presented with a seeming independence of the rules of logic; the orator, for the time, appears none the less effective if he is entirely unacquainted with those rules. Such reasoning, ignoring the ordinary steps of exact argumentation, masses and presents the proof and the reasons, with the sole intent of carrying at the moment, the point at issue, not so much by generating a cool and clear conviction as by inspiring the intuitive and instinctive impulses to yield a favorable decision. Says Zeno, "The philosophic argument is like the human hand closed; the oratorical like the same hand unfolded." The schooled logician says: "We ought to love what renders us more perfect. Now literature renders us more perfect. Therefore we ought to love literature."

But the fervid orator would exclaim: 66 • Who is it that loves not letters? They enrich the understanding, and refine the manners; they polish and adorn humanity. Self-love and good sense themselves endear them to us, and engage us in their cultivation."

This mode of reasoning employs with great effect the dilemma, also the accumulation of examples, and the method known as 66 reasoning by tests." In this latter case the orator" seizes certain determinating principles, certain limiting conditions, or depicts

« AnteriorContinuar »