Lecture on Logos
for
English 399: Rhetoric of Religion, Mary Baker Eddy
Instructor: Karen D. Austin kaustin@shepherd.edu
Shepherdstown, WV 25443
Logos means logic, kinda. Really, it means a lot more than logic, but logic is a good place to start with a definition. The word logos is related to the word logic, but it's also related to the word part -ology in biology, psychology, and criminology--all meaning the creation of, the housing of, and the organization of a specific body of knowledge / subject matter. For those of you who read the Bible, you may be interested to know that the word logos is also the original word in the New Testament John 1:1 that reads, "In the beginning was the Word [Logos]."
Is Logic Free from Rhetorical Forces? If ethos refers to the speaker's reputation and pathos to the audience's needs and values, then logos refers to the argument itself -- the "thing" being transmitted between the author and the reader. However, rhetoricians understand that logos, or the subject matter, is not entirely free from human intervention. Logos means not only the content of the argument itself, but everything from the creation of that content to the organization of it and the reception of that content. In other words, content exists only somewhere in the minds of the author and his/her readers. For example, things that may at first glance seem purely objective (parts of the body, colors in the color spectrum, names for extended family members); however, once you study a foreign language, you can see that seemingly "objective" kinds of knowledge can vary from culture to culture. Knowledge is contingent.
Logos Exists in the Creation, Content and Organization of the Argument. The content of a person's argument is created in part by his or her biography, audience, and historical setting. For example, a lecture on killer bees will vary greatly depending on who is giving the lecture (a world expert, a sixth grade teacher, a high school student), who is listening to the lecture (a PBS audience, a convention of entomologists, public school students), when the lecture was given (1800, 1900, 2000), and why the lecture was given (to entertain, to persuade, to inform). In other words, writers or speakers can never merely focus just on the content of the message. To communicate effectively, they must focus on the rhetorical situation in order to create, organize, and deliver the appropriate body of knowledge to their audience members.
Inductive and Deductive. In the western world, formally educated people tend to create and organize knowledge by either Inductive or Deductive reasoning. Entire academic disciplines have been organized and created by researching inductively and/or deductively. Becoming educated in these fields means more than just memorizing a set of facts; it means learning to think logically (meaning in that discipline's logic) as well.
When people think inductively, they observe conditions around them and draw general conclusions based on specifics. For example, when Isaac Newton had the apple fall on his head, he drew conclusions that led to his description of the law of gravity. From observing specific instances of things falling and dropping, he drew a general conclusion. When people learn from the "school of hard knocks," they generally are referring to knowledge gained by induction. They try things, experience pain or pleasure then form generalizations or laws of personal behavior based on this experience. For example, I have learned (by induction) that if I drive too fast in the rain, I crash my car. I have learned that if I buy a soft avocado, it's ripe and ready to eat.
When people think deductively, they accept certain ideas as givens or general laws, then they place specific examples as complying with those laws. For example, when a person calculates how long it will take to drive from Shepherdstown to Washington, DC, they use the formula Time = Speed times Distance. He or she may think, "If the DC Beltway is 70 miles away, I can get there in an hour if I drive 70 miles per hour." That's deduction or thinking from a general law to a specific instance. (Note that the first person to come up with the formula T=S * D did so by induction.) Here is an example of a deductive argument that is less mathematically based: Cars that do not have gas in them stop running. Sean's car is running out of gas. Therefore, it will stop running. This type of reasoning is called a syllogism: major premise, minor premise, conclusion.
Deduction: Syllogisms and Enthymemes. Most people use deductive reason by Enthymeme rather than by deductive syllogisms. For example, if you are driving to DC with Sean and notice when you are in Frederick, MD that the gas tank is on empty, you would say, "Oh, we're not going to make it to DC without getting more gas." Most people do not state the general law when thinking, talking and speaking; they just state the evidence and the conclusion. Here is another example. You might tell your friend, "If you don't get some sleep, you are going to flunk the midterm." You are referring to the general statement "people need to get a good night's sleep in order to perform well on tests," but you never state it. That's using an enthymeme instead of a syllogism.
As stated above, a lot of academic disciplines rely on inductive or deductive thinking -- or a combination of the two. For example, math, computer science, and philosophy are very deductive in their use of syllogisms. Fields that require data collection--such as biology, physics, and even psychology--rely on inductive reasoning. The Scientific Method uses both kinds of logic. It is a formalized way of taken givens or scientific laws and facts (deductive logic), forming a hypothesis (trying to find a new law) and then testing it by observation (inductive logic).
Logical Fallacies. Most logical fallacies are infractions of inductive or deductive reasoning, although some are fallacies based on abusing language, ethos or pathos. The most common fallacy of induction is drawing a conclusion based on too small of a data set. For example, "Bob is a jerk. Jill is a jerk. They are both from California, so all Californians must be jerks." Prejudice is a type of inductive fallacy. A common type of deductive fallacy is post hoc ergo proper hoc or attributing an event to a correlated rather than a causal event. For example, the research that shows that married men have better health and live longer than single men may rest of faulty logic. The men who choose to marry are often those who independent from the choice to marry choose healthier, risk-free lifestyles.
The Modes: A Way to Organizing Content. Rhetoric has a set of structures called the Modes, which describes various ways of organizing content. These structures are more than just passive containers. They can contribute to the way the speaker and audience create and perceive the subject; hence, these modes are more active than they may first appear. Here are the modes: description, narration, division/classification, example, cause/effect, pro/con, problem/solution, interpretation, analysis, and argument. Most arguments use a mix of the modes. When you read, try to see which mode the author is using in a particular passage. Some modes or thought patterns may dominate for the entire argument; others may dominate only for a section or a paragraph of the argument. Readers who can recognize the modes often have higher reading comprehension.
When writing a paper, you can connect your ideas with existing banks of knowledge by using the Modes. For example, if you need to write a paper on pollution, you might organize your paper by one of the Modes, such as cause/effect or problem/solution. If your readers see a paper filled with facts about pollution but never discern a thought pattern, they can feel lost, and they can experience difficulty connecting what you are writing with concepts they already understand. Unorganized papers then also have problems with relaying content. This is part of the reason why Logos includes organization as well as "pure" content.
All Language Is Argument. Another way of describing the creation of knowledge depends on argument analysis or the view that all language is argument. When people communicate, they are either making a claim of fact, value or policy. They support their claim through evidence. Evidence can be marshalled from a variety of sources, each having its own kind of force or sway, depending on the audience, the author, and the content of the argument: numerical facts, historical facts, testimonials by experts, common knowledge, personal opinion, personal experience. The author has to choose the right evidence for his or her argument. For example, bank examiners have to use a combination of numerical analysis, quotes from accounting/bank policy books and testimonials by experts to make their case of misconduct. However, a person making a marriage proposal may do better relying on personal opinion and experience, and perhaps a quote by a literary character--but not statistical proof from insurance tables about the longevity of married people vs. the shorter life span of single people. (Well, unless two actuaries are the ones in love.)
Dialectic and Knowledge Making. For a long time, philosophers have described the role that dialectic plays in the creation of knowledge. Dialectic has a variety of meanings from the very loosely based concept of conversation to more technical definitions linking dialectic to Socrates, Hegel, and Marx (among others). Dialectic requires a give and take, and exchange of ideas, a winnowing away of chaff so that the grains of truth remain. Dialectic can refer specifically to a development of ideas from a thesis, to an antithesis and finally to a synthesis. For example, a writer can develop the topic of teaching sex education in school by starting with the thesis that only parents should teach their children about sex. Through debate with others, research, and meditation, (forms of antithesis) the author might discover that some children's parents will neglect this duty, so the schools may want to adopt some policy for teaching public school students about safe sex, sexual functions of the body, and sexually transmitted diseases. Finally, the author might want to take a mediated position (a synthesis between the two extreme standpoints) and invite parents to participate with the public schools or ask the parents to give written permission for their children to receive instruction on the topic of sex education. At the heart of dialectic is the concept that knowledge changes, it moves, it transforms as people make statements, refute statements, defend statements, question statements, and refine statements.
Power and Knowledge. During the last half of the Twentieth Century, rhetoricians and philosophers began examining how knowledge can also be grounded in political structures. Arm chair political scientists refer to this as The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules (and makes the knowledge). Another phrase referring to this phenomenon is "The history books are written by the victors of war." Knowledge makers can take either conservative or radical positions toward accepted bodies of knowledge; they can try to preserve the powers that be, or they can question authority. For example, the celebration of Columbus Day has its supporters and detractors, each arguing in the name of truth: was Columbus a hero or a butcher? At the heart of the Culture Wars of the 1980s rests the questions: What counts as knowledge? Who should create knowledge? Whose truth should be published and distributed?
If you are interested in learning more about logos or how people create and organize knowledge, send me an email, and I can direct you to more information on the web. However, for the Mary Baker Eddy class, this will be enough to get you started. Look at the assignment sheet for Paper 3 for more pointed discussion and questions about Logos.