In chapter 24 Aristotle outlines nine fallacious lines of argument. His second fallacy peaked my interest in regard to the way he characterized the young and old in generalities (in chapters 12-14), something that initially seems to coincide with the bad lines of argument he lays out. Is he talking out of both sides of his mouth?
He spoke of the age groups in a simplified manner, giving attributes to a wide group of individuals, where many exceptions could be imagined to his paradigm. He says: "young men have strong passions, and tend to gratify them indiscriminately...it is the sexual [bodily desires] by which they are most swayed...[t]hey are changable and fickle in their desires, which are violent while they last but quickly over...[t]hey are hot-tempered and quick-tempered and apt to give way to their anger..." and on and on (bkIIch12). These are sweeping statements about the young that clearly not everyone fits into - were their no mild mannered young men in Athens? And remember "young" was in the 20's and 30's age range. This I find hard to believe.
He characterizes the old in the same simplistic way, and I will not bother you with the citation for it is much similar to the above one for my purpose. To the men in the prime of life he attributes all the desirable traits - discriminating decision making, confidence but not arrogance, etc.
Now, turning to his discussion of fallacious arguments, he says: "There may be syllogism that look genuine but are not" (bkIIch24). One of these such lines "is to assert of the whole that is true of the parts, or of the parts what is true of the whole. A whole and its parts are supposed to be identical, though often they are not. You have to therefore adopt whichever of these two lines better suits your purpose" (bkIIch24). Does this (seemingly paradoxical fallacy) not clash with his own discussion of the traits of age brackets?
He seems to have asserted onto the whole, what is true of some of the parts, since there are youths who are both slow and quick to anger, elderly who are both cynical and optimistic and men in the prime of their lives who are live outside of the moderation of virtue. So is his discussion a fallacious one? I don't think so. The crux appears where he writes "you have to therefore adopt whichever of these lines better [suit] your purpose". I think he is operating under the assumption that he could not possibly characterize every class, emotion, age group, etc. to the T, and instead is listing a general stereotype that would be useful for knowing the majority of an audience. Sure there are exceptions to just about everyone of his discussions, but if a person was appealing to a broad base group, I think he would be best suited to use Aristotle's broad base generalizations. And that was his purpose for these discussions anyway, to help the reader better understand the nature of the audience they would be appealing to.
I am not arguing for the application of stereotyping by everyone everywhere, but it can be a useful tool when used for non-malicious means.
I guess I overlooked Aristotle’s purpose behind making broad generalizations about emotions and age groups, especially since I didn’t think enough about the quote you’ve included here: “you have to, therefore, adopt whichever of these lines better [suit] your purpose.” You explain all of your thoughts really well here. I definitely agree that Aristotle probably made these broad based generalizations to help rhetors learn about their audience. After all, it is important for rhetors to know and relate to their audience. This helps rhetors understand what needs to be said in order to establish their ethos and provoke specific emotions from the audience.
ReplyDelete