Introduction to Philosophy & Logic (1999)
29. Example, Induction and Enthymeme: Arguments Near the Senses
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/1-philosophy-1999/029-example-induction-and-enthymeme-arguments-near-the-senses/

[0:00] Let's start with the argument called example. Very familiar argument, huh? But the word example is equivocal by reason, and the first meaning we usually have in mind of example is not an argument at all, but it's a singular use to illustrate, right, the universal. Okay. So if I say, for example, I'm saying, a glass is a tool for holding liquid. For example, here's a glass, right, that you that uses, right, okay.

[0:38] A chair is something to sit on for one person, etc. For example, here's a chair, right, okay. That's not an argument at all. That's a singular use to illustrate the universal. And this is necessary in all knowledge to use singulars to illustrate the universal, because of our dependence upon the senses where our knowledge begins, right? Okay. And so if the professor talks about universal without using example, it's almost impossible for students to understand.

[1:07] Okay. Okay. So it's a singular use to illustrate the universal, and it's very much like what we call the sample. You go into a great cheese store, let's say, right? Huh? You're going to buy a wedge of cheese, you know, from this great big cheese they have there, right? But you wonder whether you want that particular cheese, and the guy gives you a what? Sample, right? Huh?

[1:35] Yeah, I'll take a quarter pound or half pound or whatever it is, right? Okay. The sample is a what? It piece, a part of the whole, to indicate the quality of the whole. Okay. And then a byline. The guy is going to give you a sample of his wine. No, okay. The difference between a sample and an example, though, is in the kind of whole. you have. In the case of an example, the whole you're illustrating is a universal whole, right?

[2:10] Okay. I'm using this glass. This chair. This chair. illustrates what a chair is right Um. This piece of chalk. illustrates what a chalk. is, right. And so, on. While a sample is like a what? Integral whole, composed whole, right? Okay. I cut off a piece of that bigger part, right? Okay. I've got a pie here. I want a piece of pie. I don't know. Let me just give a sample, you know?

[2:39] Yeah. One. Nice piece of the pie now, right? I can taste the sample, right? But. the word sample, and the word example are etymologically connected, right? Monsignor Dionne spoke of how good English was, right? Sometimes, you know, Dionne take the word in Greek, sometimes the word in Latin, and sometimes the word in English. right? Hardly ever the word in French. But English has particular excellence, right?

[3:08] Does sample have a other meaning, or just means the part? Example is from sample. Yeah, I think sample is used more for the for the integral or composed whole, right? And example is used more for the universal, right? But they're similar, right? Using a part to illustrate the whole, right? Okay. Now, we're going to use the word example here, though, as Aristotle does, for an argument. And this is an argument from one singular to another singular of the same what?

[3:44] Kind. Okay. So it's an argument from one singular to another singular. of the same kind, right? Now, of course, the strength of this argument depends upon the likeness there between the two singulars, right? And the more alike they are, right, the stronger the argument is, right? Okay. So when we buy something, we often use this argument, right? I bought a Plymouth, and it lasted me ten years.

[4:31] Now I'm going to buy another car. I think I'm going to buy another Plymouth, right? Okay. My father-in-law saw how well my Plymouth did, so he went out and bought a Plymouth too, right? He got a lemon.

[4:44] Well, the fact that you know that past, uh, Plymouth was good, doesn't mean the next one necessarily be good, right? This is obviously an argument in which conclusion doesn't follow necessarily, right? Okay. But if I have, you know, now I have a Honda out there, right? Okay. And I said that a couple weeks ago. I've had very good luck with the Hondas, right? You know, they start all through the winter, even if the car is down in the garage, you know, in one car garage, and there, are three cars there, for my son and my wife I mean, the car, And they always start in the morning, right?

[5:21] Okay. I had a Chevrolet, you know, it's like it wouldn't start, right? So I buy another Honda, right, rather than another, what? Yeah. Okay. Um, it's an argument from one singular to another singular of the same kind But it depends, I'd say, upon the likeness between the two, right? One time years ago, my wife and I went to Joseph's restaurant in Boston, which I don't know if it still exists, but it's a great restaurant.

[5:49] And we went there on a Saturday night, and we had a dinner, and everything was marvelous, right? Even the potatoes you could make a whole meal. on potatoes they were so good, just such a delicious, right? So then, somewhat later uh, that year, my friend comes into town. he's a great connoisseur. he's been in Paris, and you know, he wants to go to a really good restaurant in Boston.

[6:09] Well, the only one I knew about was Joseph's, right? So we went to Joseph's on a Monday evening, right? He and I, and had a very, I would say, ordinary meal. I was a little embarrassed for having, you know, recommended this, huh? Okay. And notice, I was proceeding, right, by this argument, right? Okay. But notice, huh? In retrospect, maybe the grand chef is there on Saturday night, but Monday night is the what, the hicks in the kitchen, right, or something, right?

[6:41] See, maybe if I'd gone with my friend on another Saturday night, we would have had a more comparable meal. Even though that would not be necessarily so either, right? But the point is, you're more likely, huh? So, I think this argument depends upon the likeness between the two, huh? Okay.

[7:04] We're always using this argument without thinking about it, right? See? If you ask me a recommendation to a restaurant now, let's say two Chinese restaurants, you know, there's a Chinese restaurant in town, and I've been to one of them and had a good meal, the other one had a lousy meal, right? And I tell you that, you probably go to the one where I had a good meal, right?

[7:24] You don't necessarily get the better meal there, right, than the other one, but this is a reasonable guess. There's a reason for this, what? Guess, right? There's a reason why you're going to this restaurant. Maybe you simply flip the coin, right? See? You're using past experience, right? Okay. Um, and this gives me the guess that we call suspicion, right? I suspect you'd have a better meal there than there.

[7:53] right Let me tell you, you know, the two places, huh? Okay. And sometimes that's the best argument that we have, right? You want to know which restaurant to go to? That's the best argument I can give you, right? I? Had a good meal here, had a lousy meal there. So to go there, you get a lousy meal. and you go here, with a good meal. You know?

[8:14] So it's an argument from one side to another side at the same time. Um, take the example here that I give from Shakespeare's play, right?

[8:27] Henry the Fifth, huh? This is when the English are. It's set during the Hundred Years' War, right? When England invaded France a number of times. The war, you know, was not continuous, but it lasted over a hundred years, right? And you had these famous battles, you know, like in Henry V, you have the battle of what? Agincourt, yeah, okay. But there's the earlier battles, right? In the earlier years, huh?

[8:53] And so the English are preparing to come over, and the French king is what? Concerned, right? Okay. So he urges the nobility to prepare carefully for the second invasion in his lifetime, right, of English. And this is the words of the king. It fits us then to be as provident as fear may teach us out of late examples left by the fatal neglected English upon our fields.

[9:22] So he remembers the last time the British came over, right? Huh? And they were not prepared for them, right? The neglected English, right? The fatal English, right? See? He knew the havoc that they did, and so now they're coming again, right? He realizes the need to be as best prepared as they can. See? Now the young dolphin, right, wasn't around the first time he just came. And of course, you know, what can those northerners do, you know, with us, whey-faced picking Frenchmen, you know?

[9:52] See? He's overconfident, right? And you'll see that later on in the play too, right? But the king has what experience, right? Now notice this is an example of what Shakespeare says, looking before and after, right, Don? You're looking before what happened in the past in a similar case, and you're trying to foresee. I mean, you only have to try to foresee what it's going to be like when they come a second time, right?

[10:20] And notice the word that Shakespeare uses there, provident, right? Which is the Latin word for foresight. Yeah. When Thomas takes up the virtue of of prudence, prudentia, Latin, he's giving integral parts of prudentia. And one of the integral parts of prudentia is providentia. And how he has objections in the summa, right? One of the objections is prudence and providence mean the same thing. So how can one be a part of the other, right?

[10:55] And that's actually logically true. If you go back and get a Latin dictionary, prudentia is a contraction of providentia See. So the English translation for prudentia would be foresight, right? And Thomas says, "Well, the whole virtue is named from this part, because this is the principal part, huh? Okay. I notice in reading over the years, Sir Winston Churchill, you know, he'll tend to use the word foresight, right, rather than the word prudence, right?

[11:25] And foresight is a better word to use, huh? But you, in a sense, foresee what's coming after, right, Who's looking before and seeing. So you're looking before and after, right?

[11:38] Okay. We do this spontaneously, you know. I've read a lot of accounts of of the time when MacArthur wanted to plan the wanted to go to the Inchon landing, right? And The Washington was not was afraid of the Inchon landing, you know, and they sent the chief of staff of the army and they sent the top admiral to try to convince MacArthur not to do it, right?

[12:07] Or against it. And of course, I read, you know, two or three different accounts. People were present. That's kind of interesting because the chief of staff, you know, spoke against it, you know, and the admiral spoke against it, you know. Then MacArthur got up you know, everybody's kind of nervous. what MacArthur's gonna do, you know? And MacArthur says he's going to do exactly what Wolfe did in Quebec, you know.

[12:29] It strikes me so much, because you know what Wolfe did, right? No one thought that Wolfe could go up the river and climb the hills and come up on the Plains of Abraham, and he hit them exactly where they didn't expect him, right? And that led to the what capture of Quebec, right? I'm going to do the same thing, right? It's automatic, right? Going back like that, right?

[12:48] You know, you know, and seeing what Wolfe did, right? Sure, it was a hazardous thing in some sense. Wolfe did. He had to slip, you know, by the the French there at night, you know, and then climb the hills, right? That seemed hardly climbable, right? But they found the way up, right? You know, and MacArthur did the same thing, you know, behind the enemy, and then at least expect him, right?

[13:10] MacArthur used to joke in later years you know, hit them where they ain't. That's the way of It's all kind of competition, right? But it's the way of the strategy there. Um, that's another thing in Shakespeare, you know. Anytime you get a little quote like this for one reason, like I, you know, put this down for exemplifying, uh, in the sense, of example, Example, right? Exemplifying example.

[13:38] two different senses of example there. But notice what Shakespeare says: as fear may teach us. It's interesting that fear is said to what teach us, huh?

[13:51] In in even the early, um, Venus and Adonis, right? Little animal's being chased by the other animal, right? And he's trying to escape. And Shakespeare says, "Wit waits on danger." Wit meaning wisdom, huh? Yeah, it's fear that makes us take what counsel, right? Huh? To be careful, right? Wisely and slow. They stumble that run fast, as Friar Lawrence says. Kind of interesting. One of my friends there, having observed Monsignor Dionne for years, you know, says his predominant action is fear

[14:32] And uh but that you know made him avoid all the kinds of mistakes that other thinkers made, you know. we didn't have that same fear of being mistaken, right? This um Shakespeare's use of examples is is he referring to the examples left upon the field Are those the dead Frenchmen? Yeah, the havoc of the English, you know. uh worked the last time they were there. In fact, you know the the Black Prince there right huh The king went up on the hill there right with half of his troops you know and stood up there on the hill and watched his his uh son, there the Black Prince, right.

[15:06] you know, destroy the French. you know, You know, they had more men to spare right? Mm You know. So once you see that sort of thing, right, you say, I'm gonna be do everything we can to be prepared when the English come over a second time. So notice this kind of argument is used in rhetoric and particularly in political rhetoric. Where you're often arguing from the past to the future, right?

[15:38] You know, the most common example that we always give in modern times is that we always go back to Munich, right, and where they tried to appease Hitler, right. You know, and Chamberlain came back to England, you know, and you can see it in the documentaries even you know, I was, you know, you know, peace in our times, you know, people down there cheering. And and Churchill saying, you know, we just have to fight them under what less favorable circumstances now, right?

[16:04] Each time they did. So when you, some might say, now when we tried to appease the dictator Hitler, right, it didn't satisfy. him, it just made him more voracious, right? So then they you know, they will appeal to that when some other dictator is demanding something, right, and thinking, well, maybe if we give him this, we can avoid war, and you know, and it just makes him more what voracious, huh?

[16:28] Okay. If you go back now, you know, to the to the founding papers, like the Federalist Papers, right, you'll see they're using this argument called examples all the time, right? They go all the way back to even the Greeks, right? The Greeks, you know, could not unite, and they fought among each other, you know, the Peloponnesian War and so on. And the thirteen colonies don't unite, you know, we'll be What falling out and squabbling over boundaries and fighting?

[16:58] among ourselves, right. Okay, Or they would point to you know the union of England Scotland and how that led to economic prosperity in Great Britain, right? And then they'll argue that to this, right? Because all kinds of arguments of this kind, for example, is very common. Okay, you know, students in school, it's kind of interesting. If a student takes a course from a professor and gets a good mark, then he very often takes another course from that same professor.

[17:29] Well, if you took a course from professor and got a low mark, right, you know, you're not taking again, right? Okay. So I mean, students are always passing information. You know, if the student liked the course, you know, then okay, maybe you'll persuade his fellow student to take that course, right? Or he hated the course, or it's too difficult, or you know, you see. But you don't realize that they're using all the time this argument called what?

[17:54] Example, right? They're taking a past course and using that to judge a what? Future course, right? huh? Okay. Now notice, you might like Professor X in this course, and hate Professor X in this course. In this course, this other material, right? It's more difficult material or something, right? But as I say, the strength of this argument depends upon the what? Likeness, right? I remember when I was first teaching, I had a student in logic, which is like the first course, and then next semester, so I had him in philosophy of nature, right?

[18:30] And so I asked him, "How did you like the philosophy of nature course? " And he said, "He liked it, but it was much different than the logic course, right? " It was a different knowledge, right? You know. So I mean, you know, you have two courses that are quite different, yeah. I mean, if I'm teaching a course called "Love and Friendship," you know, he might have a over enrollment, right?

[18:52] The problem is, okay, and but someone might love "Love and Friendship" course and then "Logic" course, mightn't like that at all, right? So I mean, it depends upon the what? The likeness of the two, right? You know, so we said the same kind. The strength of this depends upon how much the two are alike. right? You get these skeptics, you know, which are historians, right?

[19:20] And you know, if you ever get a pure historian, right, you're interested in the singular as singular, right? And they see the uniqueness of every historical period, right? And this one historian that I knew very well, he said, you know, the purpose of history is to show the fallacy of all historical analogies.

[19:42] You know, you only saw the differences between, you know, but but that case, you know, you couldn't. They use this in going to the restaurant, you know, going to buying a car, or you know, you see.

[20:00] Okay, so you understand an argument then? You can call it an example, huh? Okay. I know how close that stays to sense You reason from one singular to another singular, right? But usually, like a singular from the past to a singular in the future, you're just staying in the level of the singular, right? Okay.

[20:25] Now induction is an argument from many singulars towards the universal. Okay. So you're going much further along the road, right? You're going from the singulars to the universal, right?

[20:45] So induction is an argument from many singulars to the universal. Okay. So this is the. argument we use all the time in philosophy and science, right? So I cut open this frog and here's a three-chambered heart, and this frog and this frog and so on. I am progressing towards the statement that all frogs have a three-chambered heart, right? Okay. Sometimes they translate the definition there of induction, Greek and Latin, there as an argument going forward from the singulars towards the universal, right?

[21:41] And going forward is taken from going forward the movement of an animal, right? So each singular, right? This frog has a three-chambered heart. This frog has a three-chambered heart. This frog has a three-chambered heart, right? And the more you go through, the more you advance to the statement that all frogs have three-chambered hearts, right?

[22:02] So it's an argument from many singulars to the universal, right? No, when you say many singulars, we actually have statements. Singular statements. This student has two ears. This student, the universal statement that every student has two ears, right?

[22:31] And since I now start with our sentences, this is the way we get from the census, from the census to the universal statements that we need even later on in the case of the what, syllogism, right? Now, does the conclusion follow necessarily in this argument, right?

[22:52] If I cut open a thousand frogs and each one has a three-chambered heart, can I conclude necessarily that all frogs have three-chambered hearts? No. But if I have a large number and I haven't seen an exception, right, I'll certainly make a reasonable guess, right? Now, this is the way to become universal statements. Some people jump to conclusion, which is contrary to Friar Lawrence's advice, right? Wisely and slow, they stumble and run fast, right?

[23:26] They jump to conclusion and say that no universal statement is known. But every universal statement, whether affirmative or negative, right, is a what, a guess, right? Maybe a reasonable guess, but still a guess. Well, if it was by induction alone that I knew this, right, that would be reasonable, right? But is it by induction alone that I know that every whole is more than its part?

[24:01] So I come to the statement, every whole is more than its part, by seeing wholes and their parts, right? So I come to it by induction, but I come to it by induction alone. And when the case of whole and part, I think I understand what a whole is and what a part is, so that I can see that a whole must be more than one of its parts, right?

[24:26] The whole is something that is composed of parts, right? It has parts. And but notice, if you take something like snow is white, right, I don't understand what snow is enough or what white is enough to see that snow must be white. See, I might say that all snow is white on the basis of induction alone, right? Okay. I wouldn't say that no odd number is even on the basis of induction alone, right?

[25:06] So although we do come to all universal statements by induction, in some cases we understand enough about the parts, right? It must be so,

[25:21] and that's what's overlooked, right? Notice the word "induction" there, right? It's a Latin word, right? And the Greek word that is used to translate "epagoge" has the same etymology. That's say what? A leading in, right? Okay. So you're leading somebody into the universal statement, to the what singular statements, right? You're leading them into a universal whole in a way, to the what subject parts, right? Okay. And if you look at the word "introduction,"

[26:10] which is like the Greek word "eisagoge," right? It also has that basically the same etymology. It's a leading what in, right? But an introduction to some science, you're being led into the whole science from some parts of that science, right? So it's more like the composing parts, right? In a way, we're giving introduction to logic. We're not seeing the whole logic, right? Huh? But we are seeing certain parts of logic, right?

[26:39] And so you're being led into the whole from the parts, right? So there's a likeness between introduction and induction, but not the same thing, right? And you would notice the etymology. I mean, the similarity, right, is that in both cases you're being led into the whole from the parts. But in one case it's a universal whole, induction. In the case it's more a composed whole, right? Okay.

[27:10] Um. The word I mentioned earlier, in the course, there, metaphor and translation, right? They have the same etymology, one in Greek, one in Latin, carried over, right? In the case of translation, you carry over not the word but the meaning. In the case of metaphor, you carry over the word,

[27:36] but as far as etymology is concerned, there's no reason why it couldn't be the reverse, right? So, in a way, induction and introduction have almost the same etymology, but induction is used for leading one into the universal whole from the part, and introduction, more for the composed whole.

[27:59] I also make a comparison there to the word inducement, which is now addressed more to the will or to the emotions than to the reason, right? What's an inducement? I take the example there, the economic example, where the guy says, "You know, well, if you buy this car, I'll throw in a new pair of tires or something." Right? He's trying to what? Induce you, lead you into accepting this car, right?

[28:31] But it doesn't force you to buy it, but it does, right? But it does in a way what? Climb you a bit, right? He's pushing that direction, right? He sees you kind of hesitating, you know, and then, you know,

[28:47] throw this in, you know, I better stereo or something, you know, something to throw in, you know, especially. But it's not forced, right? You definitely have to induction

[29:13] induced. Again, the parts are becoming leading into the whole. Whole arm. That's something that same sense, so appreciate the word. Now, notice the difference in example induction. In a way, the example goes from part to part, and it goes from singular, one singular to another singular, right? Sometimes use the word particular instead of singular, right? So you see, it's an argument from one particular to another particular of the same kind, right?

[29:49] By induction, sometimes we see it's an argument from many particulars to the what? The general. So it's more like going from part to the whole. Example, it's going from part to part.

[30:10] Now, it's interesting. How? In English now, the names that we have in English for these four arguments, two of them Latin, and two of them come from what? Greek, right? As if the Latins didn't have a name for the last two arguments, right? And so they took over the Greek word, right? All right, for the first two, they have a native Latin word, right? So,

[30:54] that's kind of a sign, right? The difficulty the Greeks were the teachers of the Romans. A man learned in grammar, you know, explained to us one time, you know, how the Greeks figured out the grammar of the Greek language, and the Romans couldn't figure out the grammar of their own language. But they learned from the Greeks something about the Greek grammar, and they saw we had some things like that in Latin.

[31:26] And then the things they couldn't find Latin and Greek, they just kind of tacked on to the things. And that's why the cases, you know, nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative are all screwed up in Latin, right? They don't fit the language. But in Greek, the cases in exact right order fit the language. And then he said, "We English people we borrow the Latin grammar, try to imitate that, right?

[31:52] Rather than you know thinking through our own language." So, Greeks are superior. The Greek, you know, grammarians they learned their grammar from the Greeks. And the Romans whatever philosophy they have is kind of borrowing from the Greeks. It's kind of interesting here in logic, right? The Greeks, right? At the four arguments, right, the names which they thought out in their language, right, Romans, they spoke down at this point, and they just took over the Greek word, right, you know.

[32:26] We're in even worse. Example. Now, enthymeme is kind of obscure. The etymology of the word. It's got in en, and then thumos, right? Now, thumos, the time you get to Plato and Aristotle, thumos has a sense of of anger, usually, right, or courage, right? But if you go back earlier in the Greek, thumos has a sense of the mind. Okay, so en thumos means in the mind, right?

[33:07] Okay. And in a way, it's well named because you're starting from something that is not what often singular, but something that is what more universal or almost universal, something that is in the mind, right? Okay. And a second thing that people sometimes notice about enthymeme that when a a speaker uses enthymeme,

[33:38] he often doesn't state the universal aspect, right? If he thinks that the audience will what? Pick it, up, understand it. Yeah, they'll supply that, right? Okay. Let's

[33:58] see some examples of that from Shakespeare. Now, let me uh, race here a second to define the enthymeme. The. Enthymeme is defined as an argument

[34:27] from likelihood or signs. Now, is a statement of what is true for the most part in human affairs. Sometimes we use the definition of the very famous rhetorician there, Cicero, right? And I have that stated there.

[34:59] Likelihood is what custom or opinion of human nature would say is apt to happen in one kind of situation or be done to one kind of person. Boys will be boys, right? Okay.

[35:12] So it's a statement of what is likely. It's likely the boys will be boys, right? But sometimes a newspaper read about a boy who's done the thing you expect the man to do, right? Okay. So,

[35:26] or a little girl, it happened, right? And she's the mother, right? She does everything right, huh? Okay. So, like, you find Shakespeare often is pretty likely. They use the word like, you know? The, the word in Latin is verisimilitude for likelihood. and in Greek it's eikos which has a related word eikon right? It has the word of likely, but it's likely. So it's what custom, opinion, nature would dictate.

[36:08] Politicians say what they say to get elected, right? Yeah, that's likely, right? You see. So you might state that, or you might simply like imply it, right? You know why he's saying that. He's a politician, right? And I expect, that en thumos, in the mind of my readers, right, will be the thought that politicians want to get elected, right, and they'll say things to get elected, right, And what they really think,

[36:41] right? What the part? What human nature would say? Yeah, yeah, but I did, you know, say fallen human nature. Give a guy an inch and take a mile, right? Right?

[37:02] I give this funny example in class. There was my friend Jim, right? He was a very handsome fellow, right? He's the best conversationist I knew among the students in college. And he was handsome, and he was strong, he'd been a golden gloves boxer, and so on, right? So the girls crazy about him right But Jim was was a good Catholic, right? You know. So, example I give the students allegedly give a guy an inch and take a mile, isn't it true, girls?

[37:34] They'll admit that, right? Give a guy an inch and take a mile, see. So anyway, the one story that Jim told me about was he he goes out with the girl, right, and comes back to the apartment afterwards, see. And they're sitting on the sofa there, making out a bit, and the girl says to Jim, "You can go as far as you like, see." Jim says, "Well," he says, "in that case, he says, I can go all the way home, and he gets up."

[37:59] So I said, "Here's an exception to the rule: give a guy an inch and take a mile, right? See, see. But it's likely that the man would take advantage of it, right? Which is just something like that, see, okay? And most people would likely would be stronger than the truth in some cases, right?

[38:20] Okay. So likely there's a statement about what happens in human affairs, but there's always some exceptions, usually, right? Okay. And that's why you lack the strength of the syllogism, right? Okay. A man will not always take advantage, you know. he's given that leeway right? Okay. A politician will not always, right, speak just to get elected right, okay? I told you there was some guy in American history there who said, "I'd rather be right than president."

[38:56] And I couldn't remember who his name was, so I was talking to one of the old historians of assumptions Who said that? He said, probably somebody who didn't have a chance. Yeah. But you can say it's cynical, right? You see, you know, if you had a chance, you know, you'd rather be president than right, huh? You see. I mean, a lot of times there's humor in this, right?

[39:16] But still, you know, people will take that as being likely, right? You see. Now, sign though is something which is tied to senses. So you're still fairly close to the senses when you talk about signs, huh? Now, sign is always defined as St. Augustine defined it, right? It's that which strikes the senses, right?

[39:54] And brings to mind something other than itself. So again, there's enthymemes, right? Something in the mind when you see this, right? So if you see somebody coming out of the bar and he's kind of, you know, staggering, right? Right away, you think he's what drunk, right? You don't see that he's drunk. You see him what staggering, and that's a sign that he is what drunk, right? Okay.

[40:28] Now, a man might stumble though for other reasons, right? And so, is that a necessary sign of his being drunk? It could be some other physical condition, right? My wife works with you know brain injured people sometimes, right? And some of these people, the cop thinks that they're what drunk because they act kind of you know dopey and up, and it's kind of embarrassing situation, right? Because they're really not at all that.

[40:57] okay But you know, going down. to bed at nighttime, you know, staggering down. Maybe you stagger to bed sometimes, You're, really tired, right? I always tell a couple stories of one of my students there. who had this kind of long, you know, brady hair like that. One day he comes into class and his hair is all neatly cut. So I see you change your hair. I said, "but something happened to me?"

[41:26] He was in some kind of a automobile accident, right?" He was going to defend himself in court, right? He went down to the courthouse in order to some preliminary thing and one of the things he asked the policeman there, you know, where the stitching was. And the policeman saw me pacing on the drug charges, and so so right away, you know. I mean, this was a sign to the policeman of a disordered life.

[41:47] see. I remember myself, I was driving down from Quebec, you know. here I slept in Saint-Jean, and I was driving straight through an eight nine hour drive, more or less. And it was late at night, and I'm about five miles over the speed limit, and the state trooper stopped me and just kind of gave me a warning. see. Then he looked at me, and says, "you've been drinking."

[42:10] And I imagine, you know, after eight or nine hours, my eyes. No red. This guy got a little bit of a speckle, man, and his eyes a little red, right? You rich? I said, No, I don't go down there from Quebec, you know. How's that? You know,

[42:34] tons of dollars on the corner. Yes, yes. I mean, the point of this is a sign, you see. Okay. So, most of the signs which the rhetorician reasons will be signs that are more general than what they take them to be a sign of, right? Okay. And therefore, you don't have that necessity, right? Okay.

[42:57] Now, in example here taken from Julius Caesar, from the play Julius Caesar, Anthony is what going to try to convince the crowd, right, that those who assassinated Caesar did so out of envy, right, rather than out of what their claim that Caesar was about to make himself dictator, right? Caesar was so ambitious. Now listen to this part of the speech here? But Brutus says he was ambitious, and Brutus is an honorable man.

[43:30] If you read the whole speech, he keeps on repeating that phrase. And Brutus is an honorable man, although he's giving reasons and hints that he's not at all honorable. And what figure of speech is that? Irony. Yeah, he's saying the contrary of that, right? Okay.

[43:49] He hath brought many captives home to Rome, whose ransoms did the general coffers fill. Did this in Caesar seem ambitious? Now that's an argument there. That's an enthymeme, right? It's an enthymeme from what likelihood, right? Now, what is the likelihood? Is it actually stated there? See. The likelihood is that men who are ambitious, ambitious to the point that they would make themselves what dictator, right? That these men interested in what themselves, enriching themselves, not in what benefiting their country, right?

[44:28] Okay. So the likelihood is not actually stated, but it's part of the argument, and he would take that as being enthumas in the mind, right, of his hearers, that they would see that, right, an ambitious man looks after number one, right, not after his country, right? Okay.

[44:52] Now the second enthymeme: when that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept. Ambition should be made as sterner stuff. Well, there he's stating the likelihood, right? In other words, if a man is so ambitious and he's driving to. Not only be successful, but to be what the dictator of his of his country, right? To trample upon his his country's freedom, right? Is such a man going to be what?

[45:22] Worried about the poor. Yeah, is he going to be mild and pitiful and easily moved to tears? No, I quote the the our own saying: "Nice guys finish what last, right? " You know. I remember reading one time a guy who was with he was like a reporter, I guess he was with Mussolini back in the thirties, you know. And they're driving along, you know, Mussolini's car.

[45:48] Mussolini likes to drive fast, right? And they're roaring through these little villages, and you know, and boom, it looked like they hit a little kid, right? And and of course the reporters you know are shocked looking around, and Mussolini says, "don't look back, boom. " That's what you expect of a man like that, right? You know, you know, don't look back, right? Hit a kid, okay, boom, you know, let's go.

[46:09] You see? So it's likely that a man who who's going to seize power, right, that he's going to be somewhat what ruthless, right? Okay. So this is a second enthymeme, right? You remember the third enthymeme is that he uses. Well I don't give a damn What? He refused the crown Yeah, yeah, You all did see how on the feast of Lupercal, I thrice presented him a crown, right?

[46:36] And he refused it, right? Maybe that's an argument from what Sign, right? His refusal of the crown, right? That's a sign he's not ambitious, right? I offered the crown three times to him, and he refused it, right? See, In between the parts of the speech, you have the crowd down there, right? You hear what he said Tis certain he was not ambitious, right? Because he refused the crown, right?

[47:01] See, that's something they could see, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. We saw him offer the crown three times. Of course you and I know that sometimes a politician says no and he means what Yes, right. But uh, um, and number three there, of course. He's supposed to be complete, right? Even so, you know, this may not be the time that you know sees the thing, right? So, uh

[47:29] it was in Shakespeare's play. Richard the Third, right? He's going to seize the throne, right? And the Buckingham is offering him the throne, Richard you know, is refusing like, you know, you know, and people are telling him he must accept, you know, you know, must die, you know, and so.

[47:49] Like it's like what's his name, uh, as I see this, you know, accept the nomination. He's almost comparing himself to Christ, compared to Gethsemane you know, like he's you know so reluctant to not my will, but the people's will be done. That's

[48:04] so. I mean, this is not necessary sign, right? So refusal of an honor, you could say, is a sign of lack of vision, but not a necessary sign, right? Okay. So most signs, in the enthymeme are, of that sort, right?

[48:28] Um. Sometimes they have a sign, you know, where they go to something universal. Aristotle gives the example of Socrates is a sign that philosophers are just, right?

[48:46] And that's a very weak argument, right? then? Like saying Clinton is a sign you can't trust your daughter with a president, right? Fatness is a sign that someone is joyful, or good-natured, right? It is fat but eating and being convivial, right? You tend to be full when we eat and so on. But these are not necessary signs.