Abstract
This paper attempts to show how the Logic Based Therapy [LBT] syllogism and the Enthymeme also called the Rhetorical Syllogism are in many ways related. An examination will be made of how these two compare, especially investigating the centrality of the major premise in both. Also discussed is how the major premises in both the LBT syllogism and the rhetorical syllogism, can be missing, disguised, or even suppressed. This wily premise I will call the Oblique Premise.
Aristotle revolutionized the way we do deduction. His innovation in doing deduction is the syllogism. Applying the two premises and conclusion, proofs can be used to buttress a larger belief. Yet not all syllogisms are the same. Aristotle introduces the Enthymeme[i] where one (or more) of the premises or the conclusion can fall into question and may not be clearly understood because of the questionable nature of the major premise[ii]. The [LBT] subject may have inculcated beliefs based on societal norms where the syllogism can modify behavior.
Aristotle, the originator of the syllogism, presented his system in many works which are coined today as the Organon. Not only was it used as a proof for deduction, but a similar model is also used for induction. The syllogism is presented as a device in his Rhetoric; referred to as an Enthymeme or the Rhetorical Syllogism which contains special characteristics.[iii]
This major premise can be missing from the argument unlike standard syllogisms. With the enthymeme, Logic-Based Therapists and Consultants wrestle with enthymeme like syllogisms where the major premise is crucial, and its importance may be largely inscrutable. These two types of syllogisms, Counseling based syllogism [CBS] or rhetoric based syllogisms [RBS] that are similar and may even be directly related. The enthymeme may be reflective having a like nature of the LBT syllogism, including the major premise.
Both involve missing, suppressed, or unconscious major premises. Both [CBS and RBS] influence behavior by inducing a somatic reaction in the individual, especially in the conclusion. The rhetor uses RBS to bend belief, whether intentionally or blindly, and the sufferer of [CBS] misery often arises from similar fallacious states. These states are bound to logic based stories one tells oneself (CBS) or are told by another to themselves, or by themselves to themselves. Both rely on thoughts, attitudes, and a universal bonding with the obtuse syllogistic major premise.
Both involve a basic syllogistic structure; both are amenable to Modus Ponens, and by implication Modus Tollens as well, as other consistent logical structures. Often the Major Premise is a Modus Ponens. Because of these similarities, I claim that these two dictas (CBS and RBS) especially in the gestalt of the Rhetoric Based Major Premise [RBMP] and the Counseling Based Major Premise [CBMP]. These are not a different subject matter, but rather just the same dynamic, resting as different topics, which stand in opposition. These oblique major premises stand against each individual as two inverted mirrors facing each other.
The top of the rhetorical mirror where the [RBMP] reflects across from one mirror to the other, from the rhetor to the auditor, connects the two together at the same level bringing satisfaction or exhilaration. The reflection descends downward with the [CBMP] subject beginning with the loftiness of the rhetor, to the opposed mirror at the bottom causing despair and grief.
Depending on what is perceived by the receiver determines the message of the [CBS] and [RBS] syllogism. This can be universalized categorically in its Weltanschauung. On the contrary both the action of the CBMP and the RBMP can be both depressing and exhilarating depending on the mode of action in the content to the receiver. This varies depending on norms of society. This is the uncertain nature of the oblique premise.
The rhetors [RBMP] reflects from the top of the mirror in its loftiness of oratory skill, (e.g., ethos, pathos, and logos) straight across to the other mirror, while its reflection at the receiving mirror (the auditor) stands in awe of the rhetor or downward to the bottom of the opposing mirror the [LBT] subject who suffers greatly.
The LBT subject wallows in abject despair. Previous learning can be internalized being the cause of the malady. One is externally applied by the rhetor, [RBS] and accepted by the [LBT] subject [CBS], where the purveyor of which the lie or mistruth is created by the demagogue.
This dual nature of both [CBMP and RBMP] impact the recipient (e.g, both the LBT subject and the auditor). These two ends of the mirror possibly being activated by the receiver (the auditor or the [LBT] subject) is a characteristic of the Major Premise’s obliqueness. These learned beliefs are internalized by both the [LBT] subject and the auditor. Of course, not all rhetoricians are demagogues and are very good people. For our comparison we will focus on the rhetorical (e.g, the auditor) or personal deception as it effects the [LBT] subject based on previous learning. This deception, the obliqueness of the syllogisms, can go awry.
This is a dynamic which a rhetor applies to an auditor, or what an individual [LBT] subject ultimately does to themselves using a similar major premise. This forms a possible error in reasoning. Both are subject to logical refutation based on major premises, which are suppressed, repressed, and may be unconscious.
Both syllogisms have the same structure. Like any other Aristotelian syllogistic argument, the actions of both the [CBS] and [RBS] can be seen in the traditional form with the two premises and then the conclusion which follows resolutely, although the proof may in [CBS] and [RBS] may be unsound because of inconsistency of the major premise. The major premise is present or not or even in flux like Carroll’s Cheshire Cat[iv] from Alice Through the looking glass, appearing or disappearing at will.
As a result, both the [CBMP] and the [RBMP] have impetus from the fact that the oblique premise is malleable and is absorbed by the auditor or assumed by the LBT subject; and therefore, can have the greatest effect. The rhetorician finds solace in ethos (e.g., ethics or more specifically the normative inclusion of societal and personal norms), absorbed by the counseling subject themselves, or the seeming righteousness of the rhetor, and pathos (e.g., pain of the counseled or the pleasure and satisfaction of the auditor) and logos (e.g., the logical motif of a seeming universal truth or order).
These three dynamics process and modulate the ideas throughout. This process is difficult to see as the major premise and may be suppressed, repressed or even unconscious. In both logic-based paradigms, [CBS] and [RBS], this little known or unconscious oblique premise, [CBMP and RBMP], is the most pernicious cause of behavior change as one finds themselves confused in so many ways.
First, understanding the relationship in this hylomorphic process can help one better to understand the effects of [CBS and RBS]. Having this knowledge of the similarities between [CBS and RBS] and the position in the argument of [e.g., the CBMP and RBMP], one can flesh out the operant of the functioning. Lastly knowing that both positions are related, [RBS and CBS]; this will give us insight into how this process works, not only with the actions of a demagogue, but also one suffering from a pernicious logic causing psychic malady.
The movement of the oblique major premise activates receivers at different positions on the mirror. The movement of the premise might be from Rhetor -> Auditor at the top of the mirror, Rhetor -> LBT at the top of the mirror, Rhetor -> Auditor at the bottom or Rhetor -> LBT subject at the bottom. On the other hand, the Rhetors position is fixed. These positions vary according to their somatic outcome in the conclusion.
Understanding how this commonality in structure can happen, why it happens and ultimately how knowing these two separate positions (e.g., [CBS] and [RBS]) one can be successful in overcoming the obstacles this blindness brings.
Engaged in [CBS] and [RBS] are ethos, pathos, and logos. In many cases pathos contains the emotional cathartic that is in the [CBMP] and [RBMP] which drive the conclusion and is therefore beyond cognition. This is the universal premise that holds categorically. It is these proscriptions (e.g., premises) masquerading themselves as a truth, that in fact can be subliminal or subconscious, moving toward seeming infinite divinity within the rhetor to the auditor, or at the bottom of the opposed inverted facing mirror an inferno with the LBT subject. This transience, translucence and variety in function gives the Major Premise its obliqueness.
Both can begin with an activating individual minor premise, a second universal premise and then a conclusion that follows necessarily [CBS and RBS]. The universal major premise demonstrates the ethical necessity and helps demonstrate the veracity of much of the pain and pleasure that ties the finite with the infinite, where logic forces the judgement of the existential lived condition in the syllogistic conclusion.
The proclamation of the rhetor, and the supplication of the sufferer, or the satisfaction of the auditor, can be bound together both allegorically in discourse and substantially in being. With this hylomorphic synergy, not only do these two sources (the rhetorician and the auditor or LBT subject (i.e., the subject, and the object), show similar structure, but an intertwining manifesting itself becomes apparent. Unwinding the primordial cause in one’s role as the philosophical practitioner and the understanding the rhetors tools can perhaps explain the birth of each.
Syllogisms are commonly presented as a form of inference, where if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true as well. Yet one feature of the premises is that one or more of the premises can be false, but the conclusion can still logically follow, and this can be the case in the Enthymeme. In this formulation one of the two premises is what I will call the existential while the major premise is universal with the conclusion following existentially. In the standard format of the enthymeme, the major premise is the universal premise. The conclusion often holds the somatic response
In Logic-based therapy (LBT) in the syllogistic structure there is the universal premise. In the enthymeme the major premise is assumed where the audience see their beliefs enshrined in universal truths. These truths are exemplified by the major premise as universal because they hold categorically. The LBT subject finds themselves bound by the same sort of universal premise, although in most cases these unfortunate individuals who suffer infirmities, the premise has a negative emotional import. While beyond the scope of this paper, it might be useful to consider such cases where [CBS] results in positive emotional affect from the activating premise (the minor premise) moving to the major categorical premise and ending with the conclusion. This is another example of the circumnavigation of the oblique major premise. Other forms of activation exist for the recipient.
These two formulations of universality in the major premise ([RBMP] and [CBMP]) both rely on a universal truth to form or reinforce beliefs and associated dogma. The orator asserts truths about government and politics in addition to other subjects, the [LBT] subject inadvertently tells oneself lies about individual failings.[v] These somatic results can and often are based on lies, whether it is the exhilaration of the auditor to the rhetors sleight of hands, or the despondency of the [LBT] subject.
The rhetor may speak to dissuade one, persuade, or cajole, or the [LBT] subject may internalize dialogue that punishes themselves. Both involve deception, although the demagogue’s oration is objectively the most pernicious, the [LBT] individual subjectively finds emotional incapacitation of their individual self the most destructive.
Like ordinary syllogisms, both the counseling and rhetorical syllogism are subject to refutation. The is the key to avoiding manipulation by the rhetor and the infirmity of the counseling subject, whether by counterexamples by another rhetor, or the philosophical antidote of the philosophical practitioner. This special characteristic of an enthymeme is called the refutational rhetorical[vi] syllogism, since they all rely on common knowledge, new facts may dissuade the auditor or the [LBT] subject.
How does this happen? The LBT subject may internalize beliefs about the way the things should be. These “shoulds” are firm beliefs which hold universally (and categorically). Because of the way things should be helps delineates shortcomings falling short of their lofty, and unrealistic, aspirations. The rhetors tools are often subconscious and maybe even unconscious, as these translucent arrows fly out of the rhetors oblique bow [RBMP]. These rhetorical statements [RBS] are surrounded by more general belief systems. “The world is unjust!” the rhetor or the LBT subject might proclaim. More often with the LBT subject one may try to be perfect but can never achieve their goal.
Like [RBS], [CBS] can have missing premises and act like a rhetorical syllogism although often with a negative import. In such cases the conclusion might be an emotion not consciously understood. Emotions are a product of a of Intentional objects and ratings. The rule tends to be a modus ponens that holds universally and categorically.[vii]
Contrarily the orator of the enthymeme, when prevaricating platitudes, whether there is honest appraisal of these platitudes or not, purveys beliefs that confuses the facts. While the auditor might take these convoluted facts as a complete truth, which when examining an enthymeme, with its implied missing premise, does not fall into question. With the [RBMP] the demagogue conjures up the “rule” when this universal premise is constructed.
This rhetor major premise is below the “radar” and yet lies below as a truth trumpeting that which is clearly deniable or at least is malleable and uncertain. For example, one might think the foundations for employment are just or unjust. Depending on the audience, whether a previously discriminated group (i.e., farmworkers who become unionized) or a group that feels newly disenfranchised (i.e., workers displaced due to Artificial Intelligence). Depending on the audience’s contingent situation determines the meaning of the syllogism.
Perhaps the rhetor might say “This is what cooperation has brought you!” whether this refers to the audience of field workers newly unionized or the collective acquiescence in a non-union shop to the employer where the displaced workers are summarily dismissed. The first has a positive and the second has a negative somatic result. This can bring satisfaction or anger depending on the makeup of the audience.
Also, with the [LBT] subject, depending on their view of the world, especially the ethical ramifications of a situation can construct positive or negative results depending on the story one tells themselves.
These assumed selfishly held universal premises loom largely in the variety of things. The rhetor has at their disposal the keys to constructing syllogisms as a lynchpin for larger arguments. The rhetor may do this being blind to the result of the universal premise but often, at least in the case of the demagogue, works manipulatively or malevolently changing thought and therefore behavior.
These universal truths the rhetor expounds may be transferable to the LBT subject. Whether the rhetor is a politician, a minister, or a union organizer, this trust can be used to modify behavior in the individual. Moreso it may be true that many of the truths that are inculcated by the individual are from learned behavior. An individual may assume the role as teacher, or brandishing a school of thought, or even proclaiming societal norms.
In this relationship between the rhetor and the auditor, with the inverted mirror, the demagogue bestows “wisdom” on the docile and subservient subject, viewed as ascribing to the rhetor a character of magnanimity, or on the other hand this “ignorance” of the afflicted [LBT] subject of learned uselessness. This enables the rhetor to impact their subject’s behavior and contrariwise the [LBT] subject to perpetuate and even worsen their affliction.
In extreme cases the auditor remains entranced by the rhetor and the rhetor is looked upon as being infallible. In appearing before the auditor, the rhetor comes to signify that which the auditor (or [LBT] subject personally) sees as infallible: ethically, logically, and emotionally. This aggrandizement of the rhetor by the receiver finds the rhetors influential oblique arts are induced or enhanced in the subject; both the [LBT] subject and the auditor. While the rhetor cries “One must work hard to have a good life”, the LBT subject’s inner cognition is that they haven’t worked hard enough and deserve their lowly position in life and must eternally work harder, and because of the trauma and pain are driven to self-destructive thoughts and even self-destructive behaviors.
The universal premise serves as a focal point for this internalization of ethics, pain or pleasure, and the logic in the LBT subject or the auditor. All are specific tools used by the rhetor in the promulgation of an enthymeme [RBS] and by analogy the infirmity of the [LBT] subject due to the universal premise and the surrounding syllogism, the [CBS].
Not only does the subject, whether auditor or LBT subject, see the rhetor as a source of knowledge and perhaps virtue, but also since the rhetor has these perceived qualities, the logic shared with the subject finds the two joined together in the production of a universal truth (while often truth it may not be). This brings emotional aspect of satisfaction or pleasure in the auditor or pain in the LBT subject.
I assert these two types of major premises show a sort of similarity, at least in-kind in a role as a syllogism, especially the universal major premise that results in broken truths. These broken truths seem reliable but are not. The first broken truth is the deception of the demagogue who seems to speak earnestly, and especially with the use of the major premise. The second broken truth is an authority (i.e., the rhetor) in the [LBT] subject or lies one [LBT] tells themselves based on learning.
It seems conceivable that parallel strategies can be used to usurp the demagogue or to rescue the LBT subject through counterexamples. A courageous and enlightened auditor could come up with a refutative enthymeme using common sense or a philosophical practitioner could do the same and in addition come up with an antidote.
While it is unrealistic to use refutative enthymemes to solve all the world’s problems, they serve as an excellent starting point where first the individual familiar with the missing, suppressed; identifying the unknown oblique premise, one can devise strategies not unlike those that stop wannabe dictators or those who rescue a suffering soul. But perhaps this is a topic for another paper.
[i] W.D. Ross, ed., The Works of Aristotle, Translated into English by Aristotle, XI Volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928). For specific mention of relevant book and chapter numbers, etc., regarding the enthymeme in this series from Ross, consult the footnotes at the end of the introduction. Most central I believe are the following, Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Prior and Posterior Analytics. Also of value could be Aristotle’s De Sophisticis Elenchis, De Interpretatione as well as other works in Aristotle’s Organon. An understanding of Aristotle’s Topics would be instrumental in bringing the enthymeme into public discourse in a practical manner, and this is included in the above series. Also helpful is W.D. Ross, ed., Aristotle’s Prior and Posterior Analytics by Aristotle. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949) Book 1-7. (24a1-29b29). Another excellent source is Robin Smith ed., Prior Analytics by Aristotle. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1989). Book 1 Chapter 1-7. (24a1 – 29b29)
[ii] “Not so clear I think is the fact that infallible signs, can produce syllogisms that can be sound or unsound. One can say if there is smoke there is fire, but if no smoke does occur at a particular time (say they mistook for fog for smoke), then smoke), then no fire need be present. In that case there is no correspondence someone’s assertion that there is smoke, and something actually burning.” While the argument may seem to be valid and sound, when no smoke exist the premise is false and the demonstration is unsound. It is important to note that if while the residual in the air was fog, therefore the individual is deluded and has no idea they are wrong, yet the syllogism seems sound.”
Deduction and Enthymemeic structure page 51
Master’s Thesis
Douglas Frame
[iii] “The enthymeme must consist of few propositions, fewer often than those which make up the normal syllogism. For if any of these propositions is a familiar fact, there is no need even to mention it; the hearer adds it themselves. Thus, to show that Dorieus has been victor in a contest for which the prize is a crown, it is enough to say, ‘For he has been victor in the Olympic games’, without adding ‘And in the Olympic games the prize is a crown’, a fact which everyone knows.”
The Internet Classics Archive
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html
[iv] From Alice in Wonderland
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-VI.html
[v] “Rule: If I am no longer able to achieve professionally, then I am totally worthless and might as well be dead.
Report: I have done everything that I have set out to achieve professionally and there is nothing left for me to achieve in my professional life.
Emotion: Depression”.
Elliot D. Cohen. What Would Aristotle Do? Self-Control Through the Power of Reason (Kindle Locations 1524-1526). Kindle Edition.
[vi] (xxv) Solution (refutation) of arguments may be effected by (1) counter-conclusions, (2) objections. The latter are obtained: (1) from the thing itself (the opponent’s enthymeme); (2) from an opposite; or (3) similar thing; (4) from previous decisions of well-known persons.
https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL193/1926/pb_LCL193.xliii.xml
“(Rule) If O then R (Report) O Therefore R The rule here consists in a conditional statement that links the intentional object (O) to the rating (R). The report is accordingly the intentional object (O) itself; and the conclusion consists in the rating (R) detached from the object (O)”.
Elliot D. Cohen “The Metaphysics of Logic Based Therapy” https://npcassoc.org/docs/ijpp/metaphysics_of_LBT10V3N1.pdf
