Logos: The Logical Appeal
Aristotle is seen as the father of logic (Popov, 1947, p. 1). With the exception of science, Aristotle asserted that reason and only reason is the closest to the truth (Popov, 1947, p. 19, 20). Aristotle's logic is therefore rooted in faculty of abstraction, where logic is the line between things and our perception of them. Logic lies within the conceptual world where it lives out its destiny to teach how to deal with concepts. It has the capacity to "manipulate concepts without distorting them or drawing false conclusions from them" (Farrington, 1969, p. 64). According to Aristotle, logic begins with judgment in the form of a proposition, or thesis, where the judgment is ultimately the "point of departure" for an argument (Popov, 1947, p. 4).
Logos is Greek for “word” and is the logical appeal through reasoning. Logos is the consistency in the message of the argument in clarity, logic, and effectiveness in its support. It was Aristotle's favorite and most important appeal: "Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough” (as cited in “A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals”). Logos can be done through induction and deduction, specifically in the form of facts and statistics. Induction is where a rhetorician starts with similar examples and then draws a general proposition, whereas in deduction, a rhetorician gives readers a few general propositions and then draws truth from them (“A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals”). Unlike induction, deduction is seen as the "basis of knowledge of the indemonstrable first principles of sciences" (Smith, 2011). To Aristotle, induction is more obvious, understandable, accessible, and convincing, whereas the syllogism, which is a deductive scheme, is more powerful and effective against opponents. Deduction is more powerful because induction is limited to only creating precarious inferences (Popov, 1947, p. 14; Smith, 2011). Because of this, Aristotle cautioned the use of induction in argument (Popov, 1947, p. 14). Aristotle saw induction as "the scientific method of research" and believed that it was impossible to "grasp universals except through induction" because of the senses that are required for its attainment (as cited in Popov, 1947, p. 14). Because of his emphasis on how crucial deduction is in argument, Aristotle's logic is rooted in deduction, specifically in the form of syllogism with premises and a conclusion (Smith, 2011).
Aristotle declared that men hold the capacity to grasp universal knowledge and that only a manipulation of knowledge needs to be in a syllogism. In other words, existing knowledge should be manipulated and placed into a logical, coherent argument in a syllogism (Farrington, 1969, p. 68). This logical, coherent argument is formed by intuition through demonstrations involving senses, memories, and experiences (Farrington, 1969, p. 69). With experience, one gains the universal knowledge through induction that begins with the senses and ends with the mind (Farrington, 1969, p. 70). In logic, syllogisms are assertions that can be either true or false; however, such does not occur in single words (Farrington, 1969, p. 65, Smith, 2011). Instead, the combination of sentences and how a writer weaves each word together is logic. Aristotle was only interested in propositions containing two terms - a subject and a predicate, which is described by Benjamin Farrington as "something spoken about and what is said about it " (Farrington, 1969, p. 65). Such subjects and predicates are terms that can either be individual, such as in “Socrates,” or universal, such as in “human.” Subjects, like terms, can be either individual or universal, but predicates are limited to being universal. For instance, "Socrates is human" (Smith, 2011). The relationship between the subject and the predicate, whether it is true or false, is where the logic lies in a proposition (Farrington, 1969, p. 65). Aristotle used the example of "goat-stag," where there is no significance, truth, or falsity in the word alone but when "is" or "is not" is added, it becomes either true or false (as cited in Popov, 1947, p. 3). Meanwhile, Aristotle created terms to describe this relationship of the subject and the predicate in a proposition called the Predicables with four categories: Genus, Differentia, Property, and Accident. With these four categories, Benjamin Farrington offers an example using man, where the Genus is “animal,” the Differentia is “rational,” the Property is “two-legged,” and the Accident is “white-skinned.” This specific syllogism uses deduction of a truth to make a new, valid truth (Farrington, 1969, p. 66).
The middle term, or the cause of something, is where the importance lies in Aristotle's syllogism because it is the grounds for argument (Popov, 1947, p. 8, 10). Knowing a thing’s nature is knowing the reason why it is, or the middle term (Popov, 1947, p. 10). Aristotle demonstrated that the difference between the two is dependent upon the position of the middle term when he compared the syllogism to induction. In this case, the syllogism is linked to the terms, both major and minor, by the middle term that is not in the conclusion. In induction, the middle term is linked the major term in an extreme way, while the minor term plays an intermediary role. The middle term is developed and incorporated into the conclusion where it tells the cause and the grounds of the subject being argued (Popov, 1947, p. 11). Furthermore, the most important aspect of the syllogism is the Demonstrative. For example, the first proposition that is the major premise is: "All men are mortal." The second proposition that is the minor premise is: "Socrates is a man." The third and final proposition that is the conclusion is: "Therefore, Socrates is mortal." In this example, the major premise gets its strength from induction (Farrington, 1969, p. 67). In syllogism, Aristotle argued that the major premise must include hopes of a good goal and that the minor premise must have some good already existing in a situation. Thus, Aristotle argued that one reasons not because of intuition or reasoning; in fact, reasoning begins because of a goal that one wants to achieve and continues in order to achieve such goal. One must find what ethical circumstances, such as justice, are needed in order to achieve such a goal. To Aristotle, "Virtue makes the goal right, practical wisdom the things leading to it" (Kraut, 2011).
In argument, Aristotle observed the role of a questioner and answerer, where the answerer holds a proposition of "position" or "acceptance" and the questioner asks questions to find a contradiction, where the proposition cannot be true and false at the same time. The questioner asks questions that can be answered with a simple yes or no. This gymnastic method originally used in dialect, the counterpart of rhetoric, was used either to develop an argument, to gain more information about an opponent, or to refute an opponent’s position. Similarly, Aristotle included an "art of making trail," where an argument is "put to the test" in order to expose claims of opponents, in his “laws” of rhetoric. Such can be done without knowledge of the claims because the point is to refute an opponent to either prove that they are indeed knowledgeable about their claim when they do not contradict their stance, or that they do not have knowledge because they contract their stance. Although refutation cannot establish a proposition, it can prove that a proposition is inconsistent and contradictory, which places the rhetorician in a better poison to judge what is true and what is false (Smith, 2011).
Logos is Greek for “word” and is the logical appeal through reasoning. Logos is the consistency in the message of the argument in clarity, logic, and effectiveness in its support. It was Aristotle's favorite and most important appeal: "Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough” (as cited in “A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals”). Logos can be done through induction and deduction, specifically in the form of facts and statistics. Induction is where a rhetorician starts with similar examples and then draws a general proposition, whereas in deduction, a rhetorician gives readers a few general propositions and then draws truth from them (“A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals”). Unlike induction, deduction is seen as the "basis of knowledge of the indemonstrable first principles of sciences" (Smith, 2011). To Aristotle, induction is more obvious, understandable, accessible, and convincing, whereas the syllogism, which is a deductive scheme, is more powerful and effective against opponents. Deduction is more powerful because induction is limited to only creating precarious inferences (Popov, 1947, p. 14; Smith, 2011). Because of this, Aristotle cautioned the use of induction in argument (Popov, 1947, p. 14). Aristotle saw induction as "the scientific method of research" and believed that it was impossible to "grasp universals except through induction" because of the senses that are required for its attainment (as cited in Popov, 1947, p. 14). Because of his emphasis on how crucial deduction is in argument, Aristotle's logic is rooted in deduction, specifically in the form of syllogism with premises and a conclusion (Smith, 2011).
Aristotle declared that men hold the capacity to grasp universal knowledge and that only a manipulation of knowledge needs to be in a syllogism. In other words, existing knowledge should be manipulated and placed into a logical, coherent argument in a syllogism (Farrington, 1969, p. 68). This logical, coherent argument is formed by intuition through demonstrations involving senses, memories, and experiences (Farrington, 1969, p. 69). With experience, one gains the universal knowledge through induction that begins with the senses and ends with the mind (Farrington, 1969, p. 70). In logic, syllogisms are assertions that can be either true or false; however, such does not occur in single words (Farrington, 1969, p. 65, Smith, 2011). Instead, the combination of sentences and how a writer weaves each word together is logic. Aristotle was only interested in propositions containing two terms - a subject and a predicate, which is described by Benjamin Farrington as "something spoken about and what is said about it " (Farrington, 1969, p. 65). Such subjects and predicates are terms that can either be individual, such as in “Socrates,” or universal, such as in “human.” Subjects, like terms, can be either individual or universal, but predicates are limited to being universal. For instance, "Socrates is human" (Smith, 2011). The relationship between the subject and the predicate, whether it is true or false, is where the logic lies in a proposition (Farrington, 1969, p. 65). Aristotle used the example of "goat-stag," where there is no significance, truth, or falsity in the word alone but when "is" or "is not" is added, it becomes either true or false (as cited in Popov, 1947, p. 3). Meanwhile, Aristotle created terms to describe this relationship of the subject and the predicate in a proposition called the Predicables with four categories: Genus, Differentia, Property, and Accident. With these four categories, Benjamin Farrington offers an example using man, where the Genus is “animal,” the Differentia is “rational,” the Property is “two-legged,” and the Accident is “white-skinned.” This specific syllogism uses deduction of a truth to make a new, valid truth (Farrington, 1969, p. 66).
The middle term, or the cause of something, is where the importance lies in Aristotle's syllogism because it is the grounds for argument (Popov, 1947, p. 8, 10). Knowing a thing’s nature is knowing the reason why it is, or the middle term (Popov, 1947, p. 10). Aristotle demonstrated that the difference between the two is dependent upon the position of the middle term when he compared the syllogism to induction. In this case, the syllogism is linked to the terms, both major and minor, by the middle term that is not in the conclusion. In induction, the middle term is linked the major term in an extreme way, while the minor term plays an intermediary role. The middle term is developed and incorporated into the conclusion where it tells the cause and the grounds of the subject being argued (Popov, 1947, p. 11). Furthermore, the most important aspect of the syllogism is the Demonstrative. For example, the first proposition that is the major premise is: "All men are mortal." The second proposition that is the minor premise is: "Socrates is a man." The third and final proposition that is the conclusion is: "Therefore, Socrates is mortal." In this example, the major premise gets its strength from induction (Farrington, 1969, p. 67). In syllogism, Aristotle argued that the major premise must include hopes of a good goal and that the minor premise must have some good already existing in a situation. Thus, Aristotle argued that one reasons not because of intuition or reasoning; in fact, reasoning begins because of a goal that one wants to achieve and continues in order to achieve such goal. One must find what ethical circumstances, such as justice, are needed in order to achieve such a goal. To Aristotle, "Virtue makes the goal right, practical wisdom the things leading to it" (Kraut, 2011).
In argument, Aristotle observed the role of a questioner and answerer, where the answerer holds a proposition of "position" or "acceptance" and the questioner asks questions to find a contradiction, where the proposition cannot be true and false at the same time. The questioner asks questions that can be answered with a simple yes or no. This gymnastic method originally used in dialect, the counterpart of rhetoric, was used either to develop an argument, to gain more information about an opponent, or to refute an opponent’s position. Similarly, Aristotle included an "art of making trail," where an argument is "put to the test" in order to expose claims of opponents, in his “laws” of rhetoric. Such can be done without knowledge of the claims because the point is to refute an opponent to either prove that they are indeed knowledgeable about their claim when they do not contradict their stance, or that they do not have knowledge because they contract their stance. Although refutation cannot establish a proposition, it can prove that a proposition is inconsistent and contradictory, which places the rhetorician in a better poison to judge what is true and what is false (Smith, 2011).