|
Hello everyone,
I am sure there has got to be someone on these boards who can answer this question for me:
I'm writing a paper on Demosthenes and Aeschines (a couple of Greek orators), and Demosthenes uses a tactic that I feel ought to have a name but that I can't find in any of my texts.
Here's the setup:
The two are arguing about whether a legal motion was brought against Athens in a Greek council. Demosthenes tells the Athenians that this couldn't have happened because there was no summons. What he's doing is conflating Athenian legal procedures with the procedures of this council--his audience won't know the difference, and I'm pretty sure he does this on purpose.
So, is there a name for this kind of argumentation? He's saying that because the familiar is a certain way, the unfamiliar must be the same, and his audience probably can't recognize the fallacy. However, I can't find a category that feels like it fits.
Help? Thanks!
Myth-direction :p
....So, is there a name for this kind of argumentation? He's saying that because the familiar is a certain way, the unfamiliar must be the same, and his audience probably can't recognize the fallacy. However, I can't find a category that feels like it fits.
Help? Thanks!
There's not really enough background info on the argument for me to tell, so here's a shot in the dark.
This could be a generalization, from your words above in bold, and I say this with reservation because I know nothing about the categories and relationships of councils nor about legal procedures in Athens.
Also depending on how legal proceeding in Athens are conducted, there could be a false cause here (do all legal motions begin with a summons?), but again, I am ignorant of legal procedures in Athens, so I don't know.
My 2 cents.
OK I was being cheeky with words, however Myth might suit -
5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth
|
False analogy?
It may be a hasty generalisation or fallacy of composition, but seems more like simple deception.
|
Demonsthenes used recurrent hybris clusters. He used clusters of images and words to ensure that his argument or message was carried through every part of his speech. These clusters would be semantically connected or related to create a connection between them. Basically, he designed his speech to have greater impact by repeating ideas throughout his oration.
I believe Demosthenes repeated ideas, images and words to continuously bring home his argument and to build a picture for the audience. By repeating what needed to be done, by keeping his argument in the forefront of his audiences mind, he was able to produce a powerful persuasive force in his speeches. He reintroduces his reasoning by highlighting the flaws in his opponents argument.
It's a Non Sequitor.
He's making a statement that isn't actually related to the topic at hand, and using that as a premise. He's allowing the audience to believe it is relevant because most people expect arguments to make sense.
Chief Technical Officer
|
It's a Non Sequitor.
He's making a statement that isn't actually related to the topic at hand, and using that as a premise. He's allowing the audience to believe it is relevant because most people expect arguments to make sense.
That can't be right. Non sequitur is Latin, and Demosthenes was Greek.
|
|
Hybris.
Haha. You people are very funny. Although I admit, I'll probably find you funnier after I've turned the paper in tomorrow.
seems more like simple deception
Yeah, he's absolutely lying, but he does it so systematically that I feel like it should have a name.
It's a Non Sequitor.
Thanks, Ross, this is making sense to me. Then again, I am expecting your argument to make sense...
The only other option I'd found was the type of Begging the Question where: "a dubious premise which is needed to make the argument is ignored." Here, he's ignoring the premise "Their courts work just like our courts," but that isn't how I usually think of Begging the Question, and Non Sequitur really makes sense. After all, relevance is the key.
|
|
That can't be right. Non sequitur is Latin, and Demosthenes was Greek.It's a Non Sequitor.
He's making a statement that isn't actually related to the topic at hand, and using that as a premise. He's allowing the audience to believe it is relevant because most people expect arguments to make sense.
Sigh. I really do love these message boards.
|
|
Hybris.Haha. You people are very funny. Although I admit, I'll probably find you funnier after I've turned the paper in tomorrow.
Sorry. I actually wrote more and it was eaten again by the forums. I was trying to be helpful, I promise (see my post above again... some of it got through that time).
Non-sequitur is close. Just because it is Latin does not mean you cannot use it. The idea of recurrent hybris clusters were introduced later than Demosthenes, but are still highlighted in his speeches.
Demosthenes uses the technique, if I can remember correctly, in On the Crown and the First Philippic.
|
|
Hybris.Haha. You people are very funny. Although I admit, I'll probably find you funnier after I've turned the paper in tomorrow.
Sorry. I actually wrote more and it was eaten again by the forums. I was trying to be helpful, I promise (see my post above again... some of it got through that time).
Non-sequitur is close. Just because it is Latin does not mean you cannot use it. The idea of recurrent hybris clusters were introduced later than Demosthenes, but are still highlighted in his speeches.
Demosthenes uses the technique, if I can remember correctly, in On the Crown and the First Philippic.
No no, that seemed like a great Classics joke. Now being able to see what you actually meant, I understand your point. I do not believe that this cluster idea is necessarily at work here, but I'll take another look. My paper is comparing two sections of On the Crown and Against Ctesiphon, for my graduate Greek seminar class. It's the part about Amphissa and the Amphictyony, if anyone cares.
And don't worry, I know better than to listen to Vic up there...
|
|
I think Demosthenes is using recurrent hybris clusters to build up Aeschines as a turncoat and a supporter of the Macedonians. I might be wrong, I am trying to recall the speech from memory. I have not read it in 15 years. He uses recurrent images to effectively break the argument into the comic and the tragic. Demosthenes also reminds the audience of what needs to be done in a crisis and the Aeschine may not be honourable in his motives. Aeschines argues that Amphissa is acting for Thebes, who had won great renown in Greece after the defeat of Sparta in 371 BC (if I remember correctly), and Demosthenes argues that Aeschines was working in the interest of Philip.