syllabus
calendar
blackboard
student.email resources

last.updated 10.30.05

Logos

Purpose

With our discussion of logos we move into our last section of the course on philosophy and knowledge. As we see, a lot of our early (and for that matter even current) rhetorical theory comes from individuals whom are (primarily) considered philosophers. This raises questions, such as what is the relationship between philosophy and rhetoric? Or even, what defines the boundaries between the two? Simply stated, when does the creation of knowledge become persuasive? Or when does persuasion become the creation of new knowledge? These are some of the questions that we will examine in this section.

We will start this discussion by looking at Aristotle's theory of logos. Through this examination of logos we will look at the topio Aristotle suggests for creating a logical argument. From this discussion we will come to understand how some of the strategies we use to create logical appeals has ancient precedence.

Background

Topos in Greek means "place." In rhetorical theory, Isocrates and Aristotle use topos to refer to the metaphorical "position" that the rhetor occupied; from this space the rhetor has "available means of persuasion." Topos, or topics, are the strategies that rhetors use to make their discourse persuasive.

Idia – specific to respective species of rhetoric (deliberative, epideitic, judicial)

Common Modes of Persuasion (Koinai Pisteis) – useful to all species of rhetoric

• Paradigm – Historical and fictional examples
• Maxims – pithy, epigrammic statements; "about things that involve action and are to be chosen or avoided in regard to action"
• Enthymemes – more probable than logically valid; omits the premise when it can be assumed by the audience

Topics

• Conley, Hill, and Cope–topics were memory aids, "a checklist or inventory of forms of arguments or available premises for enthymemes to help the rhetor convince an audience of a judgment already held."
  
• Grimaldi–topics are "forms of inference within a rhetoric that apprehends reality and determines probable truth."
  
• McKeon–topics are used to "discover new propositions."
  
• Enos and Lauer–some of Aristotle's topics have heuristical value, or were "socially shared instruments for creating probable knowledge." (Lauer, "Topics," 724)

Example (Topic 7 – definition): What is life? The rhetor will answer this question and then apply it to a specific instance, such as a funeral speech, a murder trial, Terry Schaivo's death, an analysis of Frankenstein, stem cell research, or cloning. Does the topic simply provide a device for making this argument or does this devise help to shed new light on the issue, the defintion, or both?

Presentation

Shanna, Regina, Kenneth, Patti

Discussion

• what is logos, according to Aristotle
• what connections do you see between his strategies for making a logical appeal and the rhetorical principles about the rhetorical participants (ethos and pathos)? the way we present an argument (delivery, style, and arrangement)?

Activity

Together we will read through the selections of two speeches on the Federal Marriage Amendment–by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.)–and address the following prompts.

Then we will discuss the following questions.

• what is each senator's position and how does each senator arrive at that position. In other words, what is each senator's argument and how is that argument supported?
• which rhetorical principles from Aristotle (or any other rhetorician we have studied) do you see evidence of in these two speeches?
• do you see either of these senators using means of persuasion that we have not discussed yet. If so, how would you describe this strategy?
• based upon your analysis, are the senators' positions reconcilable? if so, how? if not, why not

I recognize that the subject matter that I have asked you to discuss is fairly sensitive and evokes some very strong opinions. However I have deliberately chosen this subject matter because its sensitive nature has prompted rhetors, especially politicians, to compose highly stratified orations that help to illustrate contemporary uses of rhetoric. While I am certain that you have opinions on the subject matter being discussed, please respect your peers, as well as the subject matter being discussed. I hope by the end of this activity we will come to understand the rhetorical problems–political and social impasses–that can be created by some of the rhetorical strategies that get employed in our federal and social deliberative discourse.

Senator Hatch Mr. President, I would just like to respond to some of the arguments that my colleagues have been making against this measure today. First, I would like to thank them for coming to the floor and making themselves heard. This is an extremely important issue and it deserves a serious debate. One puzzling argument I have heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is one on behalf of statesÕ rights. Yesterday, Senator Dianne Feinstein argued that we run the risk of violating the sacred rights of the states if we pass this amendment. This morning her colleague from California, Senator Barbara Boxer made the same point. Senator Feingold too believes that marriage should be defined in the states. But when senators who normally argue for expanding national power start citing George Will and Bob Barr, we should probably look at their arguments with a heightened level of scrutiny. And when legislators and other advocates who not only tolerate, but actually embrace, repeated judicial amendments to the Constitution, their sudden resistance to popular amendments must be taken with at least a grain of salt. They surely know that by opposing a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, judges will continue imposing same-gender marriage over the will of the American people. Their constituents deserve better than these misleading arguments. We did not choose the schedule for this issue. It was chosen for us. And we do act reluctantly. Let me pose a question. If this is such a political issue, why did President Bush and Vice-President Cheney indicate on the campaign trail in 2000 that it was premature to pursue an amendment? The American people were as opposed to amending traditional marriage then as they are now. The reason for this change in strategy is simple. In 2000 an amendment was premature. It is no longer. In 1996, not one state required same-gender marriages. Now, however, Massachusetts has. Same-gender marriage is the law of the Commonwealth. And today, forty-six (46) states have same-gender married couples living in them. Eleven states are having not only their traditional marriage laws, but even a state amendment in the case of Nebraska, targeted by committed interest groups. In Washington State, a couple married in Oregon is seeking recognition of their marriage. In New York, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has amazingly concluded that even though New York law explicitly limits marriage to between a man and a woman, he will recognize same-gender marriages performed out of state. The list of legal challenges goes on. In 2000 when President Bush and Vice-President Cheney urged patience on this issue, marriage was secure. The states could handle this issue on their own. Today, they no longer can. Courts are poised to remove this issue from them, destroying the democratic principle of self-government that our Constitution was established to guarantee. Governor Romney in his testimony before our committee last month, got the point and demonstrated the impact of his state courtÕs decision to sanction same-gender marriage. I quote, the effect of one state recognizing same-gender marriage will not be confined to Massachusetts alone. Our stateÕs borders are porous. Citizens of our state will travel and may face sickness and injury in other states. In those cases, their spousal relationship may not be recognized, and it would be likely that litigation would result. Massachusetts residents will move to other states, and thus issues related to property rights, employer benefits, inheritance, and many others will arise. It is not possible for the issue to remain solely a Massachusetts issue; it must now be confronted on a national basis. We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, blocks judges from changing that definition and then, consistent with the principles of federalism, leaves other policy issues regarding marriage to state legislatures. The real threat to the states is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage in order to impose their will on the states, and on the whole nation. Governor Romney's diagnosis is correct. At this point, a commitment to states' rights is a recipe for depriving states of any authority over the matter. And so our Republican leadership did what leaders do. They adjusted their direction. Because the situation today is vastly different than what we faced in 2000, we require a different solution. Our goals are not what Senator Boxer has described. Nobody here is concerned about whether same-gender couples should care about each other. And nobody is concerned about whether they are moving in down the street. What we are concerned about is the likelihood that the courts are going to amend the laws in every state in the land. We are concerned that a small interest group is lobbying the courts to do its dirty work, hoping that judicial fiat will accomplish what it cannot achieve in an open political debate. In not one state has the legislature amended its laws to allow for same-gender marriage. We are fooling ourselves if we think that the courts care. They have already begun their work to undermine traditional marriage. And rest assured, more is on the way. If the states think they have sufficiently protected their traditional commitments to marriage, they had better think twice. What we are witnessing is an unprecedented usurpation of the peoples' will. But those who support this judicial disregard for popular authority do not bravely defend this irresponsible activism. Instead, they take the easy way out. It should be left to the states they say. Easier said than done. The fact is, these decisions are already being removed from the people. The laws of this country, the laws of every state in the nation, will be amended to allow for same-sex marriage absent our action. Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Feingold and many others do not address this likelihood in the least.

 

Edward Kennedy We know the many urgent challenges our country faces. The war in Iraq has brought sudden new dangers, imposed massive new costs, and is taking more and more American lives each week. Here at home, unemployment is still a crisis for millions of our citizens. Retirement savings are disappearing. School budgets are in crisis. College tuition is rising. Prescription drug costs and other health expenses are soaring. Millions of Americans are uninsured. Federal budget deficits extend as far as the eye can see, and we can't even pass a budget bill. We've just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the great Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet now, instead of dealing with the real priorities facing the nation, the Republican leadership and President Bush want to try to persuade Congress to write bigotry back into the Constitution, by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry and receive the same benefits and protections that married couples now have. It couldn't be clearer that the Republican leadership has brought up this proposal for pure politics, not for its underlying merits. They're hoping to use the issue to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage. The Republican leadership doesn't want a vote on the merits. Last Friday, Senator Reid informed the Senate that the Democrats are willing to accept a time agreement with a straight up-or-down vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment on Wednesday. "We're cleared on our side to do that," he said. "We are ready to move forward on it. We're ready to rock and roll." The Republican leadership refused our offer. They insisted on a procedural vote, not a vote on the constitutional amendment itself. In all my years in the Senate, I don't recall a single instance in which the party that supported a measure refused an up-or-down vote on its merits, and instead manipulated the process to produce a cloture vote on a motion to proceed. Obviously, they fear that too many Republican Senators would vote against the constitutional amendment on its merits. In fact, it's possible that they wouldn't get even a majority of Senators to support it. (When it became clear that a majority of members in the Judiciary Committee don't support this proposal, they simply bypassed the Committee process altogether.) This is not a serious debate about our constitutional tradition and values. It's a sham, a desperate ploy to divide the nation for political advantage. The rabid reactionary religious right has rarely looked more ridiculous. They know they don't have the votes to come even close to passing this amendment. But they have a sufficient stranglehold on the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress to force the issue to a vote anyway, in a desperate effort to arouse their narrow-minded constituency and somehow gain an advantage in the elections this year. My guess is that their strategy will boomerang, and that vastly more Americans will be turned off than are turned on by this appeal to stain the Constitution with their language of bigotry. There is absolutely no need to amend the Constitution on this issue. As news reports from across the country make clear, Massachusetts and other states are already dealing with the issue, and doing it effectively, and doing it according to the wishes of the citizens of their states. Contrary to the claims of the amendment's supporters, no state has been bound or will be bound by the rulings or laws on same-sex marriages in any other state. Long-standing constitutional precedents make clear that states have broad discretion in deciding to what extent they will honor other state laws on sensitive questions about marriage and raising families. The federal statute enacted in 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act, makes the possibility of nationwide enforceability even more remote. If it's not necessary to amend the Constitution, it's necessary not to amend it. In more than two hundred years of our history, we have amended the Constitution only seventeen times since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Many of those amendments have been adopted to expand and protect people's rights. Having endorsed this shameful proposed amendment, in an effort to divide Americans and assist his faltering re-election campaign, President Bush will go down in history as the first President to try to write bigotry back into the Constitution. No one can now claim with a straight face that he's lived up to his campaign promise to be a uniter, not a divider. The manner in which this amendment has been brought to the floor is disgraceful. The Republican leadership has decided to bypass the usual process of debating and marking up proposed constitutional amendments in the Judiciary Committee. They know they don't have the votes to pass it out of Committee. They also know they don't have the 2/3 majority they need to pass the amendment in the full Senate, but they've chosen to rush it to the floor anyway in an effort to embarrass Democrats before our convention at the end of the month.