Logic (2016)
37. Compound Statements, the Definition of Syllogism, and the Kinds of Argument: Syllogism, Induction, Enthymeme, and Example
Class of 2017-03-23
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/2-logic-2016/037-compound-statements-the-definition-of-syllogism-and-the-kinds/

[0:02] Guardian angels, I mean, help us, God, to know and love you. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or illuminate our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Just have a little review here, so we can do these things. Look,

[0:33] we've talked about statements, right? And we thought out the definition of statement, which is what? What's the genus of statement? Okay, or what more more close genus would be what? Speech, right? Speech, okay. So speech and name are both sounds, right? And they're both sounds that signify, right? And signified by custom rather than by nature, right? And the speech has what parts, right? At least two parts that signify by themselves something, right?

[1:24] And the name is kind of the ultimate thing that's signifying, no part of which signifies by itself, right? Okay. So statement is a speech, right? But the definition of statement is what?

[1:41] Speech signifying the true or false Yeah definition is also a speech, but it's speech signifying what something is, right? Okay. So you can define statement, right? Okay. But now, what is maybe the first distinction of statements? What's the first distinction? Now.

[2:18] Simple. Yeah. Okay. The simple, and then the compound. Okay. Now, in the simple statement, you're affirming or denying something one of something one, right? Or in the compound, you're combining in some way, right? Two, and sometimes more than two, what? Simple statements, right? And then you realize maybe that. When you say that a statement is speech signifying the true or the false, true or the false, the simple statement has one meaning, and the sum a different meaning in the what Compound.

[3:07] compound statement, right? And kind of the example I always give to show how different they are is that you can make a true compound statement, right, out of two false simple statements. Sounds crazy, doesn't it, right?

[3:25] But if I am a number, if I am a number seven, then I am an odd number. That true? I'm not seven, I'm number seven, am I? Maybe not number. And if I am a mother, then I am a what woman. That's true, even though it's false that I am a mother. It's false that I am a what. Okay. So the compound statement's got a different meaning, right?

[3:52] And maybe the different kinds of compound statement means something different, right? Okay. Now, there's at least three main kinds of compound statement, right? Okay. And one of them I call the either-or statement, right? Okay. Which they sometimes call the what disjunctive statement, right? Okay. And then you have the conjunction, right? Which is the one that has and in it, right? And then you have the they call the hypothetical, but I just call the if-then because hypothetical can be misleading, right?

[4:40] Okay. Because there's nothing hypothetical. If I am a number seven, then I am an odd number, right? That's a very big reason. That's real strong thinking, right? Right? Nothing hypothetical about that. not a hypothesis, right? Okay. So I just call the if-then statement, right?

[5:01] Okay. So you have the if-then statement, right? What does truth mean in the if-then statement? Does it mean the simple statement, the if part is is true? No. Does it mean that the simple statement, the then part is true? No. But it means if the first one is, then the second one will be so, right? It's not saying that it is yet true. Okay. You could even have it, you know, be true but the thing false, right?

[5:34] Okay. Then you have the either-or, right? A human being is either a man or a woman or a boy, right? Is that true? Human beings either a man or a woman or a boy.

[6:08] So, is it true? Probably not true too No, no. it's incomplete Okay So, kind of depends upon the fact that you've exhausted the other possibilities. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, Thomas is arguing, right, that the father is not before the son, right? He's got to take the distinction that Aristotle gives and the post predicaments, right, of before as being kind of exhaustive He says the chief senses right now.

[6:38] Okay, and any other senses will be attached to one of these, right? Okay, so he's kind of shortening it. Now, the other one is called the conjunctive or conjunction, right? Maybe that was not kind of tricky word, but there you have an and in there, right? An and statement, right? Okay. So, I kind of, you know, have been meanly putting down the conjunction because it's not very useful for reasoning, right?

[7:14] So, I am a philosopher and I am a grandfather, right? It's a conjunction statement, right? And you can shorten it, you know, there's still two statements: I am a grandfather and a philosopher, right? Is just one thing being said of one thing? No, there's two things being said of this. You got really two simple statements that are being combined, right now. What does truth mean in this case?

[7:42] Both have to be trying. What? Both have to be truth. Yeah, yeah. So, if I say that I am a what a philosopher and a great grandfather, that would be false, right? So far, as far as I know.

[7:59] Okay. You don't tend to argue that kind of a statement, right? Okay. Or if you do, you go back to the simple statements that it's made up, of, right? Then? You're going to be back in that kind of reasoning. But there is an if-then what? Syllogism, right? Okay. And we looked at the form of that, right now. So, in this then argument, you have this then statement.

[8:30] And puts it in the form that if A is so, then what B is so, right? Where A and B are standing for the simple statements that is composed of, right?

[8:41] And then you look either at A or you look at B, right? If you look at A, you might find out that A is or is not so, right? Now, does something follow if A is so?

[8:59] That's kind of the obvious form, right? Because you've admitted in the first statement, if A is so, then B will be so. And now you're saying that A is in fact so, right? Well, they're going to have to admit that, but B is so, right? Okay. But now, if you find out that A is not so, does that mean that B is not so?

[9:26] So you have to go to the matter, right? The matter is something convertible to the argument, right? If this number is two, then this number is half a four. This number is not two, therefore it's not half a four, right? That's because of the convertible, it's because of the matter, right? Not because of the form, right?

[9:45] So if this number is two, this number is less than what? Ten, right? That's true, right? This number is not two, therefore it's not less than ten.

[9:57] Could be three or four or five or six or seven. It's not convertible, right? So, as far as the form is concerned, it doesn't follow necessarily. If A is not so, then B is not so. So someday people will think it's going to follow, right? Okay.

[10:16] Now, when you look at the B, you might find out that B is so, right? A lot of times when we find out that B is so, we think that what? A is so, right? They're having a tryst, and they go out to the what? Motel, right? They went out to the motel. It doesn't follow, does it?

[10:48] So if I am a man, I am a what? Animal, right? Does it follow that I am a man? No. You could argue the same way. If I am the dog, then I'm an animal. But I'm an animal.

[11:10] Therefore, I'm a dog. No. So. But you can argue from B is not so, right? If B is not so, what about A. Yeah. You can show that by the first form, which is the more obvious form, right? Because if A were so, by the first form, B would have been so. But since B is not so, A cannot be. So therefore, A must not be so, right?

[11:36] Okay. So I was emphasizing this because it's very important for reasoning, right? And the either or is important, right? Now sometimes when you argue affirmatively from the either or statement, what do you do?

[11:53] Well, you know it's one of those possibilities, right? You eliminate all but what? One, right? Depending on how many possibilities you have. But if you want to argue negatively, like Thomas wanted to argue that the father is not before the son. you have got to what? Eliminate all possibilities, right? Okay.

[12:18] Now I don't think the conjunctions use you know really to syllogize, right? Because you break it down and then you bring it back to this, right?

[12:25] But the conjunction is you know important kind of statement nevertheless, right? I was thinking of the apocalypse, right? I am the Alpha and the Omega, he says.

[12:43] The first and the last. The beginning and the what? End. Kind of studied the apocalypse a little bit. I think the first time he says it, I am the Alpha and Omega, that's all he says. The second time he says, I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. And finally he says all three of them, right? Okay. Just one of those would be what a what conjunction statement, right?

[13:11] Just take the last part there. I am the beginning and the end, right? Is that one statement or a simple statement? It's a compound statement, right? You're saying two things of I, which I'm going to put in the third person would be God, right? God is the beginning and God is the end, right? Then you short it and say God is the beginning and the end, right?

[13:38] Okay. But nice that he has the Alpha and the Omega, right? Because that fits on the tabernacle better than beginning and end, right? What is this beginning and end? You stop and think. You know that you say the Alpha and the Omega.

[13:59] So is there a reason for combining those two in Scripture, right? I'm sure there is. Yeah. Any reason to combine them and say that I am a philosopher and a grandfather? There'd be some reason for it. Depends on the context. Yeah. So at the hospital, you know, sometimes you know, baby's being born, you know, they want to they're previously born in the hands of the grandfather, right?

[14:33] But they want to make sure that I am the grandfather, right? For the end of being over to me, or the little one, you know, to take care of while the other one's being born, right? Okay. But philosopher might be, you know, you know, teaching school or something, right? Okay. So I mean, that's where they go together, right? But it says in Apocalypse, I am the beginning and the end.

[14:56] God is the beginning and the end, right? Is there a reason to put those together in one compound statement? Yeah, to do my nature thing.

[15:13] Yeah, but you're talking about God as being a cause, right? And beginning, he's one kind of cause, and end is another kind of cause, right? So you're putting together every way that God is a cause in the sense that God is not the beginning of himself. Nothing is the beginning of itself, right? He's not the end of himself. Nothing is the end of itself, right? But he said to be the beginning and the cause.

[15:44] But the beginning of the cause of what? Creatures. Creatures. Yeah, you could say of all things other than himself, he is the beginning and the end, right? And that's to be the beginning and the end by antonomasia right? So he's saying it by antonomasia right? Now my teacher, Thomas Aquinas. in. My favorite book, the Summa Contra Gentiles, right?

[16:12] The first three books, right? And then fourth book again in a different way. We'll see. They divide theology into three parts, right? The first book, he talks about God in Himself or by Himself, right? Second book, he talks about God as the beginning, right? When it's the beginning of, right? And then in the third book, he talks about God being the end and His providence directing things towards the end.

[16:44] Okay. Now it's interesting. Aristotle, this is the third kind of cause. He sometimes calls it the the mover, and sometimes he calls it the what? Maker. Maker, yeah. But when you say God is the beginning, He's both a maker and a what? Mover, right?

[17:08] And so in that third part, when he talks about God being the end, though, he's talking about His moving things, directing them towards Himself, right? Okay. So I can see the you know being a hero of Thomas. There, I got you know. See, that's a pretty good conjunction, right? I am the beginning and the end, right? Explains the second and the third book, right? And in contrast to the first book, which is about God in Himself or by Himself.

[17:39] The fourth book is has three parts, right? Into the same three parts, but what's the difference, huh? He's combining another division, right? Because in the first three books, he's talking about what natural reason can know about God, as well as what faith, right? While in the fourth book, he's talking about what we can know about God in himself or at the beginning or the end of things.

[18:10] as the picker or the, mover, by faith alone, right? Okay. I think the reason why Thomas divided this way was he was commanded, right, or told to, or asked by the head of the Dominican order, right, to write something for the Dominicans who were talking to the Mohammedans down in what Spain, right? And so he wanted to separate the things that could be known by reason about God as well as by faith, right?

[18:43] From the things that could only be known by faith, right? Because you can't proceed the same way with regard to these, right? And you don't want to have the two things mixed up, right? So you didn't want the Dominicans to be trying to prove by natural reason that there are three persons in God, right? He wants to be able to defend, you know. There being two three persons in God, And Mohammedans' charge was polytheism, right, right?

[19:06] We think there are three gods, right? And the Socrates is a man, and and Plato's a man, Aristotle's a man. We've got three men, right? So the father is a god, is God, and and and the son is a god, and the Holy Spirit is a god. He's got three gods, right? And Mohammedans can't understand. They think we kind of relax, right? You know, Mohammed was was very much concerned with what the polytheism of the of the Arabs, right?

[19:34] And he wanted to, you know, eliminate this false view of God. There's only one God, right? And then it seemed like you know, the Christians had had a relapse, you know, you kind of

[19:47] had your your soup and eat it, right? You want to try to maintain this one God, but you got three three guys that are each a question is God, right? You know, you just can't get away with that, you know. So But again, it follows the same division, right? So we say that the Summa Contra Gentiles is divided into the four books by crisscrossing, right? These two divisions, right?

[20:16] God in himself. God is the beginning. God is the end, right? And then, insofar as this can be known by reason alone, as well as by faith, and then by faith what alone, and then you, you know, got the first three books and the three parts of the fourth book, right? Okay. A question

[20:37] is if the Muslim concept of Allah is that he's arbitrary at least in whatever he does, he can contradict himself no problem. Is there any argument to be made that in that case he can make himself more than one? Because he's not, he's not held to anything. I mean, the the Quran parts, the letter parts, many of them contradict the earlier parts. Yeah. yeah. Was that ever do you happen to know if that was.

[21:04] You know what? that, you could do that. you know, you could say, you know, that that uh, the, uh, the kind of leaving the him up for doing impossible things, right? Things that involve a contradiction, right? But that's part of the things you might argue from the first books, right? When you talk about God's omnipotence, right? it doesn't mean that he can make a square circle, right?

[21:25] So that's really, really nothing. Now, that's one of my conjunction statements I like very much, right? In substituting the word God in third person for I, there, right? because God is speaking, right? God is the beginning and the end, right? Combining two simple statements, right, to make one compound conjunctive statement, right? Okay. Now my other favorite one is at the beginning of the greatest book, which is supposed to be what Gospel of John, right?

[22:07] And what does he say? In the beginning was the word. Or the word was in the beginning. And what? The word was towards God. The word was toward God, and the Word was God, right? I can kind of see the importance of that, right? Just like if he had not added, you know, I am the beginning and the end, right? You might say, well, God is a cause in the sense of beginning.

[22:36] I used to ask the kids after we distinguished the four kinds of causes, matter form, mover, and end, and how many senses of cause is God a cause, right? Okay. Well, you might say, well, if God is the the beginning, then he's a cause in that sense, right? Oh yeah, but he's also a cause in this sense of being the end, right? But then you get the complication.

[22:58] Exemplar, right? Okay, two and a half causes, right? Okay. So it's good that he puts those two together, right? But now if you read this, you say, okay, just got to reading uh, the post predicament of opposites, right? One opposite is not the other opposite, right?

[23:24] And so, the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God. Well, if it was toward God, then it can't be God, right? Mm hmm Looks like it Because that's one of the kinds of opposites, relatives, right?

[23:43] So it's important to make the compound statement have three instead of two. And so you add, and the word was God. Wow. Now you say, well, maybe I didn't understand in what way the word is toward God, right?

[24:04] That God here is what standing for God the Father, right? Okay. And I kind of explained that a little bit. If I say, you know, that I Duane Berquist am the son of Reno Victor Berquist from Parkers Prairie, Minnesota. Okay. He was young he had a tail flashing because he came from that county, and he was quite a smart guy. Okay.

[24:42] if I'm the son of Reno Victor Berquist from Parkers Prairie, Minnesota, I can't be Reno Victor Berquist from Parkers Prairie, can I? The son is not the one of whom he's a son, right? Okay. But now suppose I had said it differently. I, in case you didn't know it, I'm the son of a man. True or false? True. Well, then I can't be a man, right? Because you can't be what you're a son of, right?

[25:11] Well. So everybody sees there's something wrong with my argument here, right? Because a man there what stands for your father? Yeah, yeah. And it's not that that's one of the meanings of a man. Reno Victor Berquist in Parkers Prairie, Minnesota. If you. Look up the dictionary; you'll find one of the meanings of the word Reno Victor Berquist in the unabridged, edition. But since my father was a man, right, a man can stand in some context, right, for my father, right?

[25:54] So distinction between standing for and what meaning, right? Can be seen in a non-controversial example of this, right? So I said when I said that the word was toward God, right?

[26:16] Did that mean that the one that he was toward, right? Strictly speaking, was God, and he's not. Yeah, yeah. Because the next sentence says, right? The word was God. The word was God. Yeah. So I kind of got more respect at thinking about those things. Don't be hasty. Yeah, I don't think you reason so much in conjunction unless you break it down into the simple statements that it's made up of, right?

[26:45] But it's kind of important in conjunction. Maybe some other compound statement that escapes me right now is it Three is often enough. What Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[27:00] Now I was thinking of another compound statement here. very favorite of mine. I think it's Saint Augustine says in the Confessions, I guess, "thou hast made us for thyself." and our hearts are restless until they rest, in thee Okay. Now is that a compound statement? I think so That's kind of interesting. huh He says, "thou hast made us for thyself right? He's touching upon his being both a maker, right, and his being our end, right, Because he has made us for himself.

[27:39] I mean, that's a simple statement, the way it is God has made us for himself. But it touches upon. kind of marvelous, right? About being both the beginning and the end, right? Because as a maker, he's the beginning. And for himself, right? That's the end, right? So he's cause and sense of end too, right? Okay.

[28:08] And our hearts are restless until they rest in thee right? Okay Okay. Now I was thinking about that and I'm saying, "hey, you could turn that conjunction into an if-then statement, right? If God has made us for himself, right? For himself means an end, then our hearts must be restless until they rest in him Not till you reach your end or goal that you finally win the game, right?

[28:48] Okay. It's not over until it's over, right? When it's over it's over. Okay. So that's a marvelous conjunction. I think. Is it the first book of? uh At the beginning, yeah. Yeah. One of the first chapters Yeah Maybe the first chapter Okay, So we have a review here about what statements were right, that I was gonna do my confession there with the, you know, knocking down conjunction too much, right?

[29:18] We need like these conjunctions, very much Now, what's a syllogism? Must be a It's an argument, It's more than one statement. So Okay. argument. I don't know how you use it because it's more than one statement. When Aristotle defines it, he actually, uses the more general genus, which is speech, right? Speech. Okay.

[30:15] So it's speech in which some statements. We don't say how many, but it's usually two, right? Like in the syllogism, right? It's two, and in the ones we were talking about last time, right? There are two simple statements, huh? But either or there might be more, right? Speech in which some statements laid down.

[30:52] Okay. Interesting to use that term, laid down, right? Huh? Other things are laid down, like a law. I'm gonna lay down the law, with you guys.

[31:08] You expect something, When you lay down the law. you expect you to do what? Some behavior that's gonna follow upon. The fact that the law has been laid down. You expect consequences. Yeah. So. Laid down. Speech in which some statements laid down. Another, right? And it's another. It's other, right? Another statement follows necessarily. Let me leave my scribbling there.

[31:53] Speech in which some statements laid down, another statement follows necessarily. Then Aristotle adds because of those laid down. Okay. Why does he add that?

[32:08] He's just a pedant that's all. Yeah. Because of those laid down. Okay. Well, I always go to Shakespeare's words. He says, "This is above all to thine own self be true, and it must follow the night the day thou canst not then be false to any man.

[32:41] He seems to be saying that if you're true to yourself, right, then it follows necessarily that you will be true to what? Other people? Others, yeah. Okay. That's interesting, right? Huh? You get married, you know, you make an act of choice, right? You know, I'm choosing you for my wife or my husband, whatever. Okay. And I get true to your wife. Well, if you're true to your choice, then you will be what true to your wife, right?

[33:21] But if you're false to yourself, to your choice, right, huh? Then you could very well be false to your wife, right? Okay. So Shakespeare very profound right This above all to thy own self be true. We started to point that out. when we talk about the inclination to use reason too, right? When man uses his reason, right, Correctly and so on, uh he's being true to himself, right, And this by his reason.

[33:52] okay. So this above all to thy own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day. thou canst not then be false to any man But does night follow upon day necessarily.

[34:09] Yeah, but is it followed necessarily because it was day? Or is it something else? Yeah. You know, it might be that if the sun, you know, goes around the earth necessarily, right, or if the earth necessarily turns on its axis, some people maintain, you know how?

[34:33] Then night will follow day necessarily, right? And day will follow night necessarily, right? But will day follow night necessarily because of what night is? No, it's because of the earth turning on its axis or the sun going around the earth, right?

[34:57] Well, he's adding this, right? Because of those laid down, right huh Make sense. You see that? He had to add that, right? Specifying the cause, Showing showing there's a causal relationship between Yeah. yeah yeah Yeah Cause in cause out they would say you know Okay so it was not superfluous right huh Okay You shouldn't have too much in the definition Too little Or too little Yeah Nothing too much as the wise man we said right This was not too much was it He knew what he was doing this Aristotle

[35:52] Okay Now, sometimes we take a more proximate genus. like we'll say argument right now. Okay, but but go back to speech. Now, You could say argument. huh Sometimes it's bad to do notes, but not want to divide argument right now. Okay.

[37:05] Sometimes Aristotle divides argument into just two, and sometimes he divides it into what four? Four. Sometimes he divides it into syllogism and what induction, right?

[37:33] Just like we might divide human beings into what men and woman, right? Just two, right? Okay. Now, suppose someone comes along and says, "Well, what about boys and girls? " Well, a boy is is a man, and a girl is a woman. You know, you could say that, couldn't you?

[38:01] But there's some distinction between a boy and a man, isn't there? And some distinction between a girl and a woman, right? So maybe it's not, you know, maybe you could divide human beings not just into two, man and woman, but into man and woman and what boys and girls. Makes some sense, right? Too complicated here, but makes some sense, huh? Okay.

[38:30] So Aristotle is in the book called the Rhetoric. huh? And tradition says, you know, that Plato said Aristotle one of your assignments is to write us a book on the rhetoric, on the art of persuasion, right? So rhetoric is the art of persuasion. how you persuade the crowd. how you persuade the jury, right?

[39:06] When he talks in the rhetoric about the art of persuasion, he distinguishes the means of persuasion. Right now, are there Two or three means of persuasion.

[39:22] Well, three is the first number about which we say all. So there's got to be three means of persuasion, obviously, right? Aristotle distinguishes the three means of persuasion. One is the image you project of yourself, right? I'm not. I'm talking about, right? I'm talking guy who knows what he's talking about.

[39:50] So you know, you're talking to the crowd. You have to project that you're a prudent man, right? A good-hearted man. You know, man's got their good in mind. All these things. you know Okay Aristotle actually speaks of this as being the strongest means of persuasion, The image you project of yourself. So politicians worry most of all about their image, right? Which have may not have anything to do with, what the man.

[40:22] And then the second means of persuasion, he says, is the way he moves the emotions of the audience, right? So we have a whole treatise in there on the emotions, right? How to arouse anger, how to calm down anger, how to, you know. Aristotle says, now he says, talking about the use of emotion in the courtroom, right? He says, in a well-regulated city wouldn't allow these emotional appeals, right?

[40:51] But since your opposite is going to use them, right? You've got to be able to use them, right? Okay. I was been reading of all things Richard Nixon's memoirs, right? It's a big book; it's eleven hundred pages, right? I'm up to about uh, 250 now. I took it out on Tuesday, right? I seen it in the library. I said, check that out. Things here, things. So actually, he was thought he was vice president for eight years, and then he was president for about six years, right?

[41:32] Until the year he had been a senator before that, and representative, right? And staunch anti-communist too. Staunch anti-communist too. Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah. I'll tell you this, yeah. Mm-hmm. So he made his enemies, right? huh? You know? So, on. and anyway, when he was vice president, huh? I mean, he was candidate for, vice presidency with with Eisenhower, right? The ticket, huh? And somebody got the story started about he's got some kind of a slush fund, you know, that keeps him in in the high high life, you know, and so on.

[42:09] And of course, the facts come out, it was not like that at all, right? I guess what happened was when you when you're in Washington, right? You have to go back to your district, right? Now, and they'll pay you're going back there once, you know, but that's it, right? And if you want to send out mail, you got to send out from Washington, and it costs a lot of money.

[42:29] And you got two thousand people got to send a thank you note to you, and so on. So he didn't have any money to speak of, right? And so they took up a little collection, right? And it was all what he didn't even disburse the money, right? And everything was accounted for, right? So and it turned out that Adlai Stevenson had a slush fund that was really crooked, you know.

[42:51] It was used for personal matters and so on, right? So it was all false, right? then? But he almost got kicked off the ticket, right? So finally, he had a chance to speak to the nation, right? And partly by emotional appeal, right?

[43:09] And even in terms of gifts, right? if somebody had given them this dog. right, and he said, We're still going to keep that dog no matter what he says." Appeal to dog, lovers, you know. I said it was fully justified, right? huh? You know, you know, because they're using emotion against him, right? He gets us fun, you know, he's got these huge guys there, giving money. you know, He's you know going on vacations and doing you know, and none of that was true, you know, and and and of course Stevenson.

[43:34] wouldn't take it at all you know, and of course the the press was like now, you know, they wouldn't go after Stevenson, right? And

[43:43] so, I think no one was so that's the second means of persuasion, right? So if I can get the jury, you know, feeling angry about this guy, I'd be more apt to find him guilty or punish him, maybe even more than he should be punished, right? I get them feeling sorry for him, you know, what things he did, don't take them too seriously, you know. And so, there's a example of the first one too.

[44:10] If you heard about there was a debate that was televised between him and John Kennedy when he was running against Kennedy for the presidency, and the Kennedy operatives knew that Nixon sweat easily. Yeah. And so they made sure the heat was turned up really hot where the debate was. Yeah. And so people who watched the debate on TV, they saw Nixon sweating. And so generally, they thought that he lost the debate.

[44:40] Yeah. People who heard it over the radio thought that Nixon won. Wow, interesting. My cousin talked to me about you know, here on the radio, and it seemed like Nixon was making the best arguments, you know, and so on. And Nixon was actually under the weather; he was recovering from. Oh. You know, and so it was. He didn't have makeup to be the Kennedy head, you know.

[45:03] It's kind of interesting after the the Bay of Pigs, you know. Kennedy, you know, called in Nixon. and said, what did I do? Really? Oh, really? Wow. Especially Jackie says he was crying.

[45:19] What did I do? Wow. Yeah. They're kind of friends. when. They first came in. They both came in in the house, you know, in 1947, right? And you're kind of friends, you know. The beautiful, beautiful letter he wrote to Jackie Kennedy even after he was assassinated. And it has a letter that she wrote back to him, very nice.

[45:45] Okay, but then the third means of persuasion Aristotle says is the arguments or apparent arguments that he uses, right? These are the least important, but something to be said to them, right? Okay.

[46:00] So, if you read the Federalist Papers, right, you see the argumentative aspect of rhetoric, right? Because the Federalist Papers were published in newspapers, right? And Hamilton and Jay and so on were trying to persuade them to approve the new Constitution, right? Okay, and they did it, right? Yeah, arguments, huh? But there's two kinds of arguments you use down there, right? And one of them is called the enthymeme.

[46:38] E there Okay. And the other is called example. Example is an equivocal word, right? Because example here doesn't mean a singular used to illustrate the universal, right? Example means an argument from one singular to another singular, right? Of the same kind, right? Okay. So in the Federalist Papers, you know they talk about the Greek city-states, right? And they couldn't unite in one central government, and so they got involved in all these fights like the Peloponnesian Wars and so on.

[47:16] So if we don't unite, you know, we're going to have the same kinds of squabbles and so on, right? And then the words of the poet, "A long farewell to all my greatness. In it right, Shakespeare's play, right? It's the poet? just

[47:33] Shakespeare. Okay. Well, he says an argument must be a syllogism or reduction, so he says enthymeme must be a syllogism or induction. Example must be one of those. I can see that. Looks like you know he's saying about the boys and the girls. Well, the boy, since he's an immature or undeveloped man, right, not a perfectly formed man, right? And the girl is not a perfectly formed woman, right, A fully developed woman, right?

[48:09] So in a way, there's just two men and a woman, but in another way, there's four boys and girls too, right? See, but they're like a imperfect syllogism, like a perfect what induction, right? So example, he calls rhetorical induction, okay?

[48:30] Now why does he say that now? Induction is an argument from what many singulars to the universal, right? You might speak it this way: an argument

[48:44] from many singulars to the universal, okay? So this man here has got what? Two ears. This man over here's got two ears. Who has got two ears?

[49:08] He's got two ears. He's got two ears. So I'm inducing what? Yeah. Yeah. I did a lot of questions about two ears, didn't you? He says the man loses. Lose the ear. That's some kind of injury now or something.

[49:28] The War of Jenkins' Ear. What? The War of Jenkins' Ear. Yeah. Terrible. He wouldn't press Yeah. He's having his fights are terrible. Guys, want to chew that guy's ear. You know, Just make me sick to hear about this sort of thing, you know.

[49:49] An example is an argument, right? From one singular. To another, right, of the same kind, right. So the strength of the example depends upon how much the two examples, right, singulars, like each other, right. But like induction, it seems to be going from the singular, right,

[50:27] and you're taking this one singular as representative of that kind of what, singular that exemplifies, right. So when they argue from the Greek city states, right, to our city states, right, or our country, our states, right, you're arguing from one singular to another singular of the same kind, right. Depending on how you know, great you thought of the singulars, where you can see this kind of an argument.

[51:12] Now it's interesting, huh, that the argument from the singulars in English now, where we get these words, induction, example, from what language? Induction would be from Latin. Yeah. And example. Um, I think that is Latin. Yeah. yeah. That's something. A syllogism enthymeme come from where? Greek, Greek, Greek. Yeah. see? So these are those dumb Latins right now. Didn't have a word in their Latin for what syllogism or enthymeme.

[51:48] Just had arguments for these ones that are from singulars. As Boethius says, the thing is singular in one sense, right? Universal understood. Well, in the syllogism and the enthymeme, you use something what universal, right? Main syllogism there for simple statements is based upon what they call in Latin the dici de omni the dici de nullo, the set of all and the set of none, right? They're based upon some kind of a universal what knowledge, right?

[52:20] Okay. By induction and the example, are moving from what singulars, right? Now the enthymeme, huh? Enthymeme is defined as an argument from likelihood or from signs, right? Now likelihood

[52:39] is what's true for the most part in human affairs, right? Boys will be boys. But are boys always acting like boys? Sometimes a boy does something very what manly and brave and so on, right? But boys will be boys. for the most part right Okay. And so the enthymeme is like syllogism proceeded from something that's not maybe fully universal, so it lacks necessity, right? I mean if you say he's a boy.

[53:16] he must have acted like a boy. Well you can't quite say that, you know. But you say boys will be boys." The Jews take what? in money grabbing. them I always do that. example I told you before. They came back from a vacation. My father said he'd take us out to dinner. you know, so we don't have to prepare anything on the square. long. And one of his business friends comes in.

[53:49] and, oh, hi, Mr. Workless, you know, he buys the meal for all of us. and my father let him pay for it. I said, I was not surprised. My father says, "well, he's Jewish, right? and he doesn't want to be what considered as stingy. or that type of lot, and he tries to be generous like this. and he'd be insulted. if you don't let him do it.

[54:11] So I let him do it. You know. Okay. I mean, it's like you know, people say that's what Jews are. You know. We had

[54:22] a Jewish boy in high school there. You know, the Thomas Military Academy there. And Warren Murray goes to one of the stores with a Jewish boy right?

[54:36] the owner was Jewish, right? And of course, oh, He's giving the Jewish boy a discount, right? And they thought the Warren was a, must be Jewish because he's a friend of the Jewish boy, right? And of course, the Jewish boy's kind of embarrassed by this, you know, you see you know the way the Jews help each other, you know. So.

[55:05] Okay. So the enthymeme is from likelihood or from signs, huh? And most signs are what? Not completely universal, right? So if you see me coming out of the bar, you know. What would you say? Not too much. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You seem to be drunk, right? Okay. I mean, that's true for the most part. That guy's coming out of the bar. You know, he's drunk, right?

[55:36] But my my my wife worked for the Brain Injury Association, right? And you get these guys who are brain injured, right? And they what walk like a drunk man or someone, right? Which is actually seen from the doctors. He's what? And it's false, right? So not everybody who stumbles, right? I'm an old man like that, watch now. I step, you know. And you watch older person, right?

[56:02] You know, I mean, you know, they're, you know, you know, it's like they're, you know. So, what you take, a sign is something that strikes the senses and brings to mind something other than itself, right? But most signs are what less than universal, right? They don't have quite the force of the syllogism, right?

[56:27] But they might be good for the most part, right? Okay. So the enthymeme is a little bit like a syllogism. It's kind of arguing from verisimilitude, right, which is what's true for the most part in human affairs, right? Um, or from signs, right? But they lack the complete universality of the syllogism, right? The example might be just in one singular, right? Okay.

[56:57] My brother Richard went to uh, Notre Dame for his doctorate, and, uh, his, uh, his landlady was scared stiff of blacks, right? And I guess some black men beat up her husband, you know so she now she can't trust you know. But most black men aren't that way, are they? No no It's a very weak argument Arguing from one, you know, thing in a sense, right? From one singular, right?

[57:27] Get down with this guy. You know, she's just afraid. We get kind of, you know, so this is much weaker than induction, right? So enthymeme and example are different from syllogism and induction, but enthymeme in some way is to example a bit like syllogism is to induction, right? Now I'm amused that, the Latins had a name for these, right? But none for these because they didn't understand the higher arguments, right?

[58:05] I told you what the uh, the linguist up there, at, the ball said. You know, the the Greeks were smart and they could figure out the grammar of the Greek language, right? The Latins were too dumb to figure out the grammar of the Latin language, so they imitated Greek grammar, right? And they kind of shoved things in when they did things to the degree, and then they said the English grammarian, you know, imitated the Latin grammarian, so.

[58:34] But you could say superiority of the Greeks as far as grammar is concerned, and the same thing as logic, right? That's why, you know, all they did in Latin was eventually, you know, make a Latin word out of syllogism, right? So the gizmo, you know, or something like that, right? And we got the Latin derived words, so something can learn from. etymology, a bit there about the superiority of the Greeks to the Latins.

[59:00] I was reading about the Vatican Museums, you know. of course, you see the good statues there; either made by the Greeks that came to Italy, right? Or they imitated the Greek, you know, statues. huh? They actually had to copy them, right? And uh, it's better.

[59:18] The Iliad, I mean, is is much superior to what. Virgil. Yeah, yeah, Oh yeah. I just feel imitation. Kind of flattery. Good job for talking about the Iliad, you know. It's a kind of kind of flattery. Yeah. As we're always admired. Yeah, Greeks. So in poetry, grammar, logic—you know, you name it, you Even Cicero said that Aristotle's really was a golden river. you know that's

[59:53] And He sees a revolution right Okay. So sometimes we say there are these four kinds of what arguments, right? And sometimes they add to these, right? You could use what fiction, right? Poetry for kind of what to persuade people to, right? And so, what's that famous novel there that got a lot of Americans opposed to slavery, right? Uncle Thomas. Mm-hmm. Uncle Thomas. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You see, the way they're being treated, you know,

[1:00:44] That's kind of very weak argument, in a sense, right? If someone says, you know, I've read Romeo and Juliet. and. I know what young lovers are like.

[1:00:56] I mean, is that really a good argument to say that young lovers are this way because Shakespeare has represented them this way? Or should you say, you know, that because of my knowledge of young lovers, I can say that Shakespeare has represented them well. I judge that Shakespeare represents, you know. I mean, one of the big critics, you know, has followed Shakespeare around the world. You know, because he's been performed in all kinds of languages he didn't even realize.

[1:01:24] you know. And then people call and say, "That's us, you know. That's you know, Yeah, yeah. They need something universal, right? Insisted upon that, right? They need something.