He all,
ERIN:
> laws of reason vs laws of logic
>
> All mosbies are zavvy
> Jeggar is a mosby
> Therefore jeggar is zavvy
>
> This is high quality according to the laws of logic but low quality in the
> laws of reason.
>
> Even if you want to go to
>
> All men are mortal
> Socrates is a man
> Therefore Socrates is a mortal
>
> Although this is high quality in the laws of logic it is only through
> reasoning of the premise that determines whether this is high or low
quality
> of intellectual value.
>
RICK:
Aristotle saw two different forms of reasoning.
'Analytical reasoning' and 'Dialectical/Rhetorical reasoning' (he explored
both in his 'Organon'). The former is what you're calling 'logic', the
latter what you're calling 'reason'.
He described 'Analytical reasoning' as impersonal. It draws it's
validity from it's form (a=b, b=c, therefore a=c). The inference is valid
whether or not the premises are (Garbage in, garbage out). And if the
premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true. (Aristotle studies this
type of reasoning in depth in his 'Prior and Posterior Analytics').
Analytics is what assures us that if 'All men are, in fact, mortal', and
'Socrates is, in fact, a man' then Socrates MUST be mortal.
'Dialectical/Rhetorical reasoning' is what takes over where Analytics
leaves off. And it's very personal. Where as Analytical Reasoning is
'demonstration', rhetorical/dialectical is 'deliberation' (not to be
confused with the 'deliberative'... the name of one of Ari's modes of
rhetoric) . It proceeds from previously accepted propositions and values
and draws its force from the intensity of the participants' belief in the
validity of those propositions and values. If the premises are true, the
conclusions are probably true. (Aristotle studied this type of
reasoning in depth in his 'Topics', 'Rhetoric', and 'Sophistical
Refutations'). Dialectical/Rhetorical is why 'all mosbies are zavvy'
persuades no one of anything. There are no previously accepted propositions
about what are 'mosbies' or what is 'zavvy'.
[NOTE: Aristotle believed that dialectic and rhetoric are counterparts.
Interestingly, Phaedrus notes this in ZMM on p329-330 and reads it as a
'diminution of dialectic... to a counterpart of rhetoric'. But his
conclusion questionable. Phaedrus's interpretation of Aristotle's thoughts
on the relationships of concepts like 'rhetoric', 'dialectic', 'ideas', and
'the scientific method' like in the 3rd paragraph on p.330 are confused and
oversimplified. He mentions on the previous page that he had trouble making
sense out of Aristotle's treatise on the 'Rhetoric'. He would have been
well served to read the 'Topics' and 'Sophistical Refutations' which contain
quite a bit of clarifying information.]
rick
All men are mortal,
Socrates is mortal,
Therefore, all men are Socrates.
(S.Martin)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:51 BST