1.5. Enthymemes and Syllogisms
Now the one kind of Sign (that which bears to the proposition it supports the relation of particular to universal) may be illustrated thus. Suppose it were said, “The fact that Socrates was wise and just is a sign that the wise are just.” Here we certainly have a Sign, but even though the proposition be true, the argument is refutable, since it does not form a syllogism.
Suppose, on the other hand, it were said, “The fact that he has a fever is a sign that he is ill,” or, “The fact that she is giving milk is a sign that she has lately borne a child.” Here we have the infallible kind of Sign, the only kind that constitutes a complete proof, since it is the only kind that, if the particular statement is true, is irrefutable.
The other kind of Sign, that which bears to the proposition it supports the relation of universal to particular, might be illustrated by saying, “The fact that he breathes fast is a sign that he has a fever.” This argument also is refutable, even if the statement about the fast breathing be true, since a man may breathe hard without having a fever.
It has, then, been stated above what is the nature of a Probability, of a Sign, and of a complete proof, and what are the differences between them. In the Analytics a more explicit description has been given of these points; it is there shown why some of these reasonings can be put into syllogisms and some cannot.
The Example has already been described as one kind of induction, and the special nature of the subject-matter that distinguishes it from the other kinds has also been stated above. Its relation to the proposition it supports is not that of part to whole, nor whole to part, nor whole to whole, but of part to part, or like to like. When two statements are of the same order, but one is more familiar than the other, the former is an Example.
The argument may, for instance, be that Dionysius, in asking as he does for a bodyguard, is scheming to make himself a despot. For in the past, Peisistratus kept asking for a bodyguard in order to carry out such a scheme, and did make himself a despot as soon as he got it. So did Theagenes at Megara, and in the same way all other instances known to the speaker are made into examples in order to show what is not yet known: that Dionysius has the same purpose in making the same request, all these being instances of the one general principle, that a man who asks for a bodyguard is scheming to make himself a despot.
We have now described the sources of those means of persuasion which are popularly supposed to be demonstrative.
There is an important distinction between two sorts of enthymemes that has been wholly overlooked by almost everybody—one that also subsists between the syllogisms treated of in dialectic. One sort of enthymeme really belongs to rhetoric, as one sort of syllogism really belongs to dialectic, but the other sort really belongs to other arts and faculties, whether to those we already exercise or to those we have not yet acquired. Missing this distinction, people fail to notice that the more correctly they handle their particular subject the further they are getting away from pure rhetoric or dialectic.
This statement will be clearer if expressed more fully. I mean that the proper subjects of dialectical and rhetorical syllogisms are the things with which we say the regular or universal Lines of Argument are concerned, that is to say those lines of argument that apply equally to questions of right conduct, natural science, politics, and many other things that have nothing to do with one another. Take, for instance, the line of argument concerned with “the more or less”. On this line of argument it is equally easy to base a syllogism or enthymeme about any of what nevertheless are essentially disconnected subjects—right conduct, natural science, or anything else whatever.
But there are also those special Lines of Argument which are based on such propositions as apply only to particular groups or classes of things. Thus there are propositions about natural science on which it is impossible to base any enthymeme or syllogism about ethics, and other propositions about ethics on which nothing can be based about natural science.
The same principle applies throughout. The general Lines of Argument have no special subject-matter, and therefore will not increase our understanding of any particular class of things. On the other hand, the better the selection one makes of propositions suitable for special Lines of Argument, the nearer one comes, unconsciously, to setting up a science that is distinct from dialectic and rhetoric. One may succeed in stating the required principles, but one’s science will be no longer dialectic or rhetoric, but the science to which the principles thus discovered belong.
Most enthymemes are in fact based upon these particular or special Lines of Argument; comparatively few on the common or general kind. As in the Topics, so in this work, we must distinguish, in dealing with enthymemes, the special and the general Lines of Argument on which they are to be founded. By special Lines of Argument I mean the propositions peculiar to each several class of things, by general those common to all classes alike. We may begin with the special Lines of Argument.
But, first of all, let us classify rhetoric into its varieties. Having distinguished these we may deal with them one by one, and try to discover the elements of which each is composed, and the propositions each must employ.
To obtain a deluxe leatherbound edition of METAPHYSICS by Aristotle, subscribe to Castalia Library.
For questions about subscription status and billings: subs@castalialibrary.com
For questions about shipping and missing books: shipping@castaliahouse.com
You can now follow Castalia Library on Instagram as well.
Enthymemes and Syllogisms. I get it, but I don’t. Can you please expound on his use of these words. I’m retarded.