Logic A-Z From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Chapter 1 Antepredicament Antepredicaments, in logic, are certain previous matters requisite to a more easy and clear apprehension of the doctrine of predicaments or categories. Such are definitions of common terms, as equivocals, univocals, etc., with divisions of things, their differences, etc. They are thus called because Aristotle treated them before the predicaments, hoping that the thread of discourse might not afterwards be interrupted. 1.1 References • This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chambers, Ephraim, ed. (1728). "*article name needed". Cyclopædia, or an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (first ed.). James and John Knapton, et al. 2 Chapter 2 Apophasis Not to be confused with Apophysis (disambiguation), Apoptosis, or Apophis (disambiguation). Apophasis is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up.*[1] Accordingly, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony. Also called paralipsis (παράλειψις) – also spelled paraleipsis or paralepsis –, or occupatio,*[2]*[3]*[4]*[5] and known also as prae- teritio, preterition, antiphrasis (ἀντίφρασις), or parasiopesis (παρασιώπησις), apophasis is usually employed to make a subversive ad hominem attack, which makes it a frequently used tactic in political speeches to make an attack on one's opponent. Using apophasis in this way is often considered to be bad form. The device is typically used to distance the speaker from unfair claims, while still bringing them up. For instance, a politician might say, “I don't even want to talk about the allegations that my opponent is a drunk.”It can also be used in denying such claims entirely, for example by saying “I'm sure that my opponent is not lying; however, his grasp of the facts seems to be shaky.”*[6] 2.1 Name The word is Late Latin, from Greek ἀπόφασις from ἀπόφημι apophemi,*[7] “to say no”.*[8] 2.2 Proslepsis When paralipsis is taken to its extreme, proslepsis occurs, and the speaker provides full details stating and/or drawing attention to something in the very act of pretending to pass it over: “I will not stoop to mentioning the occasion last winter when our esteemed opponent was found asleep in an alleyway with an empty bottle of vodka still pressed to his lips.”*[9] Paralipsis was often used by Cicero in his orations: “Obliviscor iam iniurias tuas, Clodia, depono memoriam doloris mei”(“I now forget your wrongs, Clodia, I set aside the memory of my pain [that you caused].”) —Cicero,"Pro Caelio", Chapter 50 “It would be superfluous in me to point out to your lordship that this is war.” —Charles Francis Adams, U.S. Ambassador to Britain, dispatch to Earl Russell, 5 September 1863, concerning Britain's relations with the Confederacy. “Ssh,”said Grace Makutsi, putting a finger to her lips. “It's not polite to talk about it. SO I won't mention the Double Comfort Furniture Shop, which is one of the businesses my fiance owns, you know. 3 4 CHAPTER 2. APOPHASIS I must not talk about that. But do you know the store, Mma? If you save up, you should come in some day and buy a chair.” —Alexander McCall Smith, Blue Shoes and Happiness, Chapter 4 As a rhetorical device, it can serve various purposes, often dependent on the relationship of the speaker to the ad- dressee and the extent of their shared knowledge. Apophasis is rarely literal; instead, it conveys meaning through implications that may depend on this context. As an example of how meaning shifts, the English phrase“needless to say”invokes shared understanding, but its actual meaning depends on whether that understanding was really shared. The speaker is alleging that it is not necessary to say something because the addressee already knows it, but is it so? If it is, it may merely emphasize a pertinent fact. If the knowledge is weighted with history, it may be an indirect way of levying an accusation (“needless to say, because you are responsible"). If the addressee does not actually already possess the knowledge, it may be a way to condescend: the speaker suspected as much but wanted to call attention to the addressee's ignorance. Conversely, it could be a sincere and polite way to share necessary information that the addressee may or may not know without implying that the addressee is ignorant. An example of the last type of paralipsis/paralepsis, where it serves to politely avoid suggestion of ignorance, is found in the narrative style of Adso of Melk in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, where the character fills in details of early fourteenth-century history for the reader by stating it is unnecessary to speak of them.*[10] 2.3 With proper names When it is taboo to speak of an entity by name, an epithet or sobriquet can be used in place of the name. For example, when it was forbidden in Myanmar to speak the name of political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi, she was commonly referred to as “The Lady”. Various names of God in Judaism are used to avoid writing or speaking sacred names. The name of the fictional Lord Voldemort in the popular Harry Potter universe is taboo, and he is commonly referred with epithets such as “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named”and “You-Know-Who”. 2.4 Examples 2.4.1 Political In 1988, President Ronald Reagan said of Michael Dukakis, a presidential candidate who was rumored to have received psychological treatment, “Look, I'm not going to pick on an invalid.”*[11] In 2015, Donald Trump said of fellow Republican presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, “I promised I would not say that she ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground.”*[12] In 2016, Trump tweeted of journalist Megyn Kelly, “I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct.”*[13] 2.5 See also • Argument from ignorance • Argument from silence • Elephant in the room • The lady doth protest too much, methinks • Glossary of rhetorical terms • Problem of induction • Apophatic theology • Ironic process theory • Unsaid 2.6. NOTES 5 2.6 Notes [1] Baird, A. Craig; Thonssen, Lester (1948). “Chapter 15 The Style of Public Address”. Speech Criticism, the Development of Standards for Rhetorical Appraisal. Ronald Press Co. p. 432. [2] Kathryn L. Lynch (2000). Chaucer's Philosophical Visions. Boydell & Brewer Ltd. pp. 144–. ISBN 978-0-85991-600-4. Retrieved 22 May 2013. [3] Anthony David Nuttall (1980). Overheard by God: fiction and prayer in Herbert, Milton, Dante and St. John. Methuen. p. 96. Retrieved 22 May 2013. [4] Fārūq Shūshah; Muḥammad Muḥammad ʻInānī (al-Duktūr.) (2003). Beauty bathing in the river: poems. Egyptian State Pub. House (GEBO). p. 19. Retrieved 22 May 2013. [5] K. V. Tirumalesh (1999). Language Matters: Essays on Language, Literature, and Translation. Allied Publishers. p. 113. ISBN 978-81-7023-947-5. Retrieved 22 May 2013. [6] Safire, William (October 9, 1988). “ON LANGUAGE; Debatemanship”. The New York Times. [7] “Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon”. Perseus Digital Library. Tufts University. Retrieved 7 April 2013. [8] “apophasis”. Dictionary.com. Retrieved 1 June 2011. [9] Burton, Gideon O. “paralipsis”. Silva Rhetoricae: The Forest of Rhetoric. Brigham Young University. Archived from the original on 25 May 2011. Retrieved 1 June 2011. [10] Eco, Umberto (1984). “Postscript to the Name of the Rose”. The Name of the Rose. Translated by William Weaver. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. p. 39. Eco and Weaver use the spelling paralepsis or “passing over”for the phenomenon. [11] Lamar Jr., Jacob V. (15 August 1988). “Reagan: Part Fixer, Part Hatchet Man”. Time Magazine. Retrieved 16 August 2015. [12] Strauss, Daniel (14 August 2015). “Donald Trump bad-mouths his rivals”. Politico. Retrieved 16 August 2015. [13] “Donald J. Trump on Twitter”. Twitter. Retrieved 2016-01-27. 2.7 References • Smyth, Herbert Weir (1984) [1920]. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 680. ISBN 0-674-36250-0. 2.8 External links • Figures of rhetoric: Apophasis • A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices: Apophasis • Wordsmith: Paralipsis Chapter 3 Argument map An argument map In informal logic and philosophy, an argument map or argument diagram is a visual representation of the structure of an argument. An argument map typically includes the key components of the argument, traditionally called the conclusion and the premises, also called contention and reasons.*[1] Argument maps can also show co-premises, objections, counterarguments, rebuttals, and lemmas. There are different styles of argument map but they are often functionally equivalent and represent an argument's individual claims and the relationships between them. Argument maps are commonly used in the context of teaching and applying critical thinking.*[2] The purpose of mapping is to uncover the logical structure of arguments, identify unstated assumptions, evaluate the support an argument offers for a conclusion, and aid understanding of debates. Argument maps are often designed to support deliberation of issues, ideas and arguments in wicked problems.*[3] An argument map is not to be confused with a concept map or a mind map, which are less strict in relating claims. 3.1 Key features of an argument map A number of different kinds of argument map have been proposed but the most common, which Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe called the standard diagram,*[4] consists of a tree structure with each of the reasons leading to the conclusion. 6 3.2. REPRESENTING AN ARGUMENT AS AN ARGUMENT MAP 7 There is no consensus as to whether the conclusion should be at the top of the tree with the reasons leading up to it or whether it should be at the bottom with the reasons leading down to it.*[4] Another variation diagrams an argument from left to right.*[5] According to Doug Walton and colleagues, an argument map has two basic components: “One component is a set of circled numbers arrayed as points.