Phil 148 Chapter 3A

Violating Conversational Rules Often, violating a conversational rule draws attention to a specific use of language for a specific purpose.

Rhetoric To some extent, Rhetoric is a part of all good writing and persuasion, but failing to recognize rhetoric is a failure of critical thinking. In general, when the word ‘rhetorical’ is added to another word, (e.g. ‘question’) what results is something that isn’t just what the word ‘rhetorical’ is paired with. A rhetorical question is not just a question. Likewise, a rhetorical analogy is not just an analogy.

Rhetorical Questions Rhetorical questions get their force from defying the cooperative principle, namely the rule of Quantity, because a rhetorical question typically asks for obvious information. This is why a rhetorical question is typically one that does not require an answer (which makes it not, strictly speaking, a question). Is then answering a rhetorical question itself rhetorical? Sometimes, one must answer a rhetorical question

Overstatement/Understatement Over/Under-statement is a way to make a conversational exchange interactive by intentionally using too weak or too strong language to describe something. This invites the other parties to the conversation to insert a more appropriate descriptor in their minds. Overstating is a violation of Quality, Understating is a violation of Quantity.

Irony/Sarcasm Either indicated by tone of voice, or by violating rule of Quality in some obvious way.

Metaphor/Simile Are violations of Quality because they are not to be taken literally Aristotle: a good metaphor is like a puzzle…good metaphor? Metaphor can be enlightening, but also misleading:

Deception is not always direct falsehood. Sometimes it is saying something true that implies something false. Bronston v. US is an example

Premise/Conclusion Markers Premise: – Since… – Because… – For… – As… – Seeing that… – In light of… Conclusion – Therefore – Hence – Then – Thus – So – Ergo – Accordingly – QED

Standard Form Premise… :. Conclusion

Unstated (implied) premises Often times an unstated premise is obvious, but it is important to fill in the right one. Smoking is bad for you, so you should stop That jacket looks tattered, I’d say it’s time to get a new one

Implied conclusions …but it hurts every time I push that button… The store’s closed after 5, and it’s already 6

Conditionals: Antecedent – The part after the ‘if’ and before the ‘then’ – The ‘cause’ if you will Consequent – The part after the ‘then’ – The ‘effect’ if you will

Conditionals vs. Arguments When people use conditionals, they make no commitment to whether the antecedent of the conditional is true, so a conditional by itself can never be an argument Whenever someone makes a commitment to a conditional being true and also to the antecedent being true, they must commit to holding the consequent to be true (this is an argument pattern called Modus Ponens) If someone were to commit to the falsity of the consequent, then they must commit themselves to the falsity of the antecedent (provided they commit themselves to the truth of the conditional) Sometimes the truth of the antecedent or falsehood of the consequent is conversationally implied