Trivium Pattern in speech (reading TWEM)

[Guest sarah123]

I am reading the WEM and have been thinking about the Trivium stages of grammar, logic and rhetoric for evaluating books, and I have also begun to recognise this pattern in the expressing of an argument.

 

For example, if I want to argue that everyone should own a dog, and I simply say; "I think everyone should own a dog!" the listener might say; "Oh?". If I only state; "People have owned dogs for 1000s of years," Or simply; "Dogs are loyal and great friends" my listener might respond with something like; "So what?"

 

I only make sense if I use all three stages together (similar to syllogisms);

(grammar/fact/information) Humans have owned dogs for 1000s of years.

(logic/evaluation) Dogs are loyal and make great friends.

(rhetoric/conclusion/opinion) Therefore, everyone should own a dog.

 

Has anything like this been said anywhere? I can't seem to find any information on using the stages of the trivium in arguing a point, when all of the best orators used this pattern to get their points across. St Paul is a great example as he uses this pattern continually in his epistles, ie when he argues that we don't need to follow the LOM;

 

Galatians 3:19 (grammar/fact) Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made;

(logic/evaluation) .... 22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed.

(rhetoric/conclusion) 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith.

 

Hope I'm making sense! I would love to take this further if anyone can point me in the right direction.

 

Thanks

[TerriMI]

(similar to syllogisms);

(grammar/fact/information) Humans have owned dogs for 1000s of years.

(logic/evaluation) Dogs are loyal and make great friends.

(rhetoric/conclusion/opinion) Therefore, everyone should own a dog.

 

 

 

 

I think you have a great question and interesting insight. However, your argument is put into a formal syllogism form--kind of anyway. Yeah it's quasi-logical. The first two premises need to be related to each other in the way that you learn when you study formal logic. And the conclusion also must be related to the two premises in a certain formulaic way. After that, it can be evaluated for validity and truth. I think that is what you are missing. I think that after you study formal logic, you might have a BANG UP idea!!! You will be better able to relate your idea to logic and argumentation.

 

I recommend _Traditional Logic_ by Martin Cothran, published by Memoria Press. Take your kids through it and learn along with them!! It's challenging and if you enjoy a challenge, it's fun! They also have a forum at the MP site where you could ask for a better evaluation of your idea than I can give you. They may be able to give you a quicker answer than what you would get if you studied on your own first, if that is what you want. Would you understand the answer then??? IDK!

 

Or if you have already studied Logic, then put your syllogism in a valid form and we can more easily talk about how good your idea is. Yeah! Post it! I'd love to think about it more! : )

 

< edited to add:> However, now that I look at it again, I can already see an _informal_ fallacy in the first premise. Humans have owned dogs for 1000s of years. This is both a bandwagon and age fallacy. The sentence might make a good first sentence to an introduction paragraph of an formal essay, but it would not fly as a premise for a deductive argument.

 

Informal fallacies are not as challenging and they are fun with the right curriculum. We enjoyed Classical Academic Press's, _the Art of Argument_.

 

 

Keep thinking! Keep asking!

Edited August 16, 2010 by TerriKY

[Guest sarah123]

I recommend _Traditional Logic_ by Martin Cothran,

 

Thanks; I just put that book in my wish list; it looks great.

 

Or if you have already studied Logic, then put your syllogism in a valid form and we can more easily talk about how good your idea is. Yeah! Post it! I'd love to think about it more! : )

 

I am no expert on logic and intend to study more, but I have tried to compare these Trivium stages to a syllogism and they don't seem to compare, although they have the same "ring" to them. Though I need to look more into this.

 

Humans have owned dogs for 1000s of years. This is both a bandwagon and age fallacy. The sentence might make a good first sentence to an introduction paragraph of an formal essay, but it would not fly as a premise for a deductive argument.

 

Yes, it's a fallacy, but my point was that I was trying to show (in my elementary way) how I recognise the trivium stages in speech patterns, even if the argument is fallacious. I just grabbed any example. The Grammar stage is the information and 'fact' part of an argument, ie that humans have owned dogs for many years, which is a "fact". The "logic' stage is where the fact is 'evaluated' - the reason why humans have kept dogs for so long is because they make such great pets and are loyal etc. I might also add that humans tend to feel lonely at times (fact) and dogs can be their friends when noone else is around (evaluation). Then the rhetoric stage is where I add my own opinion; "I think everyone should own a dog."

 

But let me try another simpler one;

 

1.(grammar) It is raining and you want to go for a walk(fact)

2.(logic) If you go outside you will get wet and feel miserable, and you would rather feel happy (evaluation)

3.(rhetoric) I think you should stay inside (opinion)

 

Plus, it doesn't have to be in that order. It can go: "I think you should stay inside because it's raining out there, and if you go out you will get wet and feel miserable, and you would rather feel happy."

 

So what I'm trying to say is that a statement of "reason" (perhaps not necessarily logical?) needs all 3 components in it: grammar, logic and rhetoric. If it is missing one or two of these 3 parts, it is not ... articulate?

 

???? :001_unsure:

Edited August 17, 2010 by sarah123