BibTex RIS Cite

Aristotle’s Paradeigma Notion and it’s Influence On Cicero’s Usage in Rhetoric

Year 2014, Issue: 17, 289 - 308, 01.05.2014

Abstract

In the first and second book of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, the definitions on the logical proof of paradeigma method differ. In the first book, paradeigma is defined as an independent and self sufficient method of argument from, another method of argument, enthymēma; however, in the second book it is evaluated as a part of enthymēma under it’s reservation. These differences in definitions raise the question whether Aristotle progressed paradeigma’s method of argument from piece to piece or under the mediation of a generalization. In this paper, these two different paradeigma definitions by Aristotle will be examined under the light of two different opinionated researchers Benoit and Hauser’s views, and as a result, the view relating more to Aristotle than the other will be presented. Later, Cicero’s inductio definition and examples which he gave in De Inventione will be evaluated concordantly. As a result, a contribution to the better understanding of the Cicero’s procedure of applying the method will be made by highlighting the similarities and differences between Cicero and Aristotle

References

  • Arslan, A. (2007). İlkçağ Felsefe Tarihi 3: Aristoteles. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi. Arist. = Arıstoteles
  • _____An. Pr.= Analytikon Proterōn. (2002). The Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics. Çev. Hugh Trendennick Cambridge (Ma): Harvard University (The Loeb Classical Library).
  • _____An. Post.= Analytikon Hysterōn. (1960). Posterior Analytics, Topica Çev. Hugh Trendennick. Cambridge (Ma): Harvard University, (The Loeb Classical Library).
  • _____(1960). Aristotle’s Prior and Posterior Analytics: A Revised Text With Introduction And Commentary. Çev. Ross. W.D. London: Oxford University.
  • _____Rh.= Peri Rhētorikēs. (2006). The “Art” Of Rhetoric. Çev. John Henry Freese, Cambridge (Ma): Harvard University, (The Loeb Classical Library).
  • _____Top.= Topikōn. (2002). The Categories, on Interpretation, Prior Analytics. Çev. Hugh Trendennick Cambridge (Ma): Harvard University, (The Loeb Classical Library).
  • Benoit, W. L. (1987) “On Aristotle’s Example.” Philosophy&Rhetoric 20/4: 261-267. Cic. = Cıcero
  • _____Inv. Rhet.= De Inventione. (1993). De Inventione, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, Topica. Çev. H. M. Hubbell. Cambridge (Ma): Harvard University, (The Loeb Classical Library).
  • Cope, E.M. (1867) An Introduction ao Aristotle’s Rhetoric. London&Cambridge: Macmillan And Co, Archive.Org. Web.
  • Copleston, F. (2008). A History of Philosophy Volume 1: Greece And Rome. Great Britain: Continuum.
  • Dürüşken, Ç. (2. Basım 2001). Roma’da Rhetorica Eğitimi. İstanbul: Arkeoloji Ve Sanat.
  • Fortenbaugh, W. W. (1998). “Cicero, on Invention 1.51-77 Hypothetical Syllogistic and the Early Peripatetics.” Rhetorica 16/1: 25-46.
  • _____(2005). “Cicero As A Reporter Of Aristotelian And Theophrastean Rhetorical Doctrine.” Rhetorica 23/1: 37-64.
  • Guthrie, W.K.C. (1990). A History of Greek Philosophy Vol. Vı: Aristotle An Encounter. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
  • Grünberg, T. (2005). Felsefe Ve Felsefi Mantık Yazıları. İstanbul: Yky. Hauser, G. A. (1968). “The Example in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Bifurcation or Contradiction?” Philosophy&Rhetoric 1/2: 78-90.
  • _____(1985). “Aristotle’s Example Revisited.” Philosophy&Rhetoric 18/3: 171- 180.
  • Kennedy, A. G. (1963) The Art of Persuasion in Greece. New Jersey: Princeton University.
  • _____(1972). The Art Of Rhetoric in the Roman World. New Jersey: Princeton University
  • Martin-Velasco, M. J. (2014). “The Paradigm in Aristotle’s Rhetoric and its Use in Judical Speeches.”, Academia.Edu Web.
  • Lsj = The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon. “Παράδειγμα” Tanım. Web.
  • Mccaskey, J. P. (2006) Regula Socratis: The Rediscovery of Ancient Induction in Early Modern England. Stanford University Johnmaccaskey.Com Web. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi).
  • _____(2010). Professor Higgins’ Philosophy Of Science: Why Can’t Induction Be More Like Deduction?. Academia.Edu Web.
  • Montefusco, C. L. (1998) “Omnis Autem Argumentatio...Aut Probabilis Aut Necessaria Esse Debebit (Cic. Inv. 1.44)” Rhetorica 16/1: 1-24.
  • Ocd3 = Hornblower, S. – A. Spawforth. (19963). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Üçüncü Basım). Oxford/New York: Oxford University. Öner, N. (11. Basım 2011). Klasik Mantık. Ankara: Divan.
  • Ross, W.D. (1993). Aristoteles. (Ed.) Prof.Dr.Ahmet Arslan. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi.
  • Schweinfurth-Walla, S. (1986). Studien Zu Den Rhetorischen Überzeugnungsmitteln Bei Cicero Und Aristoteles. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
  • Sprute, J. (1982). Die Enthymemtheorie Der Aristotelischen Rhetorik, Göttingen.

ARISTOTELES’İN PARADEIGMA ANLAYIŞI VE CICERO’NUN RETORİKTEKİ KULLANIMINA ETKİSİ

Year 2014, Issue: 17, 289 - 308, 01.05.2014

Abstract

Aristoteles’in Peri Rhētorikēs yapıtının birinci ve ikinci kitabında, retoriksel akıl yürütme yöntemlerinden biri olan paradeigma üzerine verdiği tanımlar birbirinden farklıdır. Birinci kitapta paradeigma, diğer retoriksel akıl yürütme yöntemi olan enthymēma’dan bağımsız ve kendi başına yetkin bir akıl yürütme metodu olarak tanımlanırken; ikinci kitapta ise enthymēma’nın koşulları altında, onun bir parçası olarak ele alınmaktadır. Tanımlardaki bu ayrılık, Aristoteles’in paradeigma yönteminde akıl yürütmeyi, parçadan parçaya doğru mu yoksa bir genellemenin arabuluculuğuyla mı ilerlettiği sorusunu ortaya çıkarır. Bu makalede öncelikle Aristoteles’in verdiği bu iki farklı paradeigma tanımı, konu üzerine zıt bakış açısı geliştiren iki araştırmacı, Benoit ve Hauser’in tezlerinden yola çıkılarak incelenecek ve sonuçta birbiri ile çelişen tanımlardan hangisinin Aristoteles’te daha ağır bastığı gösterilmeye çalışılacaktır. Sonra, Cicero’nun De Inventione yapıtının birinci kitabında verdiği inductio tanımı ve örnekleri bu bağlamda ele alınacaktır. Sonuçta, Cicero’nun Aristoteles ile benzeşen ve farklılaşan noktaları ön plana çıkartılarak düşünürün metodu işleyiş yönteminin daha iyi anlaşılmasına katkıda bulunulacaktır

References

  • Arslan, A. (2007). İlkçağ Felsefe Tarihi 3: Aristoteles. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi. Arist. = Arıstoteles
  • _____An. Pr.= Analytikon Proterōn. (2002). The Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics. Çev. Hugh Trendennick Cambridge (Ma): Harvard University (The Loeb Classical Library).
  • _____An. Post.= Analytikon Hysterōn. (1960). Posterior Analytics, Topica Çev. Hugh Trendennick. Cambridge (Ma): Harvard University, (The Loeb Classical Library).
  • _____(1960). Aristotle’s Prior and Posterior Analytics: A Revised Text With Introduction And Commentary. Çev. Ross. W.D. London: Oxford University.
  • _____Rh.= Peri Rhētorikēs. (2006). The “Art” Of Rhetoric. Çev. John Henry Freese, Cambridge (Ma): Harvard University, (The Loeb Classical Library).
  • _____Top.= Topikōn. (2002). The Categories, on Interpretation, Prior Analytics. Çev. Hugh Trendennick Cambridge (Ma): Harvard University, (The Loeb Classical Library).
  • Benoit, W. L. (1987) “On Aristotle’s Example.” Philosophy&Rhetoric 20/4: 261-267. Cic. = Cıcero
  • _____Inv. Rhet.= De Inventione. (1993). De Inventione, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, Topica. Çev. H. M. Hubbell. Cambridge (Ma): Harvard University, (The Loeb Classical Library).
  • Cope, E.M. (1867) An Introduction ao Aristotle’s Rhetoric. London&Cambridge: Macmillan And Co, Archive.Org. Web.
  • Copleston, F. (2008). A History of Philosophy Volume 1: Greece And Rome. Great Britain: Continuum.
  • Dürüşken, Ç. (2. Basım 2001). Roma’da Rhetorica Eğitimi. İstanbul: Arkeoloji Ve Sanat.
  • Fortenbaugh, W. W. (1998). “Cicero, on Invention 1.51-77 Hypothetical Syllogistic and the Early Peripatetics.” Rhetorica 16/1: 25-46.
  • _____(2005). “Cicero As A Reporter Of Aristotelian And Theophrastean Rhetorical Doctrine.” Rhetorica 23/1: 37-64.
  • Guthrie, W.K.C. (1990). A History of Greek Philosophy Vol. Vı: Aristotle An Encounter. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
  • Grünberg, T. (2005). Felsefe Ve Felsefi Mantık Yazıları. İstanbul: Yky. Hauser, G. A. (1968). “The Example in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Bifurcation or Contradiction?” Philosophy&Rhetoric 1/2: 78-90.
  • _____(1985). “Aristotle’s Example Revisited.” Philosophy&Rhetoric 18/3: 171- 180.
  • Kennedy, A. G. (1963) The Art of Persuasion in Greece. New Jersey: Princeton University.
  • _____(1972). The Art Of Rhetoric in the Roman World. New Jersey: Princeton University
  • Martin-Velasco, M. J. (2014). “The Paradigm in Aristotle’s Rhetoric and its Use in Judical Speeches.”, Academia.Edu Web.
  • Lsj = The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon. “Παράδειγμα” Tanım. Web.
  • Mccaskey, J. P. (2006) Regula Socratis: The Rediscovery of Ancient Induction in Early Modern England. Stanford University Johnmaccaskey.Com Web. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi).
  • _____(2010). Professor Higgins’ Philosophy Of Science: Why Can’t Induction Be More Like Deduction?. Academia.Edu Web.
  • Montefusco, C. L. (1998) “Omnis Autem Argumentatio...Aut Probabilis Aut Necessaria Esse Debebit (Cic. Inv. 1.44)” Rhetorica 16/1: 1-24.
  • Ocd3 = Hornblower, S. – A. Spawforth. (19963). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Üçüncü Basım). Oxford/New York: Oxford University. Öner, N. (11. Basım 2011). Klasik Mantık. Ankara: Divan.
  • Ross, W.D. (1993). Aristoteles. (Ed.) Prof.Dr.Ahmet Arslan. İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi.
  • Schweinfurth-Walla, S. (1986). Studien Zu Den Rhetorischen Überzeugnungsmitteln Bei Cicero Und Aristoteles. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
  • Sprute, J. (1982). Die Enthymemtheorie Der Aristotelischen Rhetorik, Göttingen.
There are 27 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Ceyda Üstünel Keyinci This is me

Publication Date May 1, 2014
Published in Issue Year 2014 Issue: 17

Cite

Chicago Keyinci, Ceyda Üstünel. “ARISTOTELES’İN PARADEIGMA ANLAYIŞI VE CICERO’NUN RETORİKTEKİ KULLANIMINA ETKİSİ”. FLSF Felsefe Ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, no. 17 (May 2014): 289-308.

Starting from 2024, our journal will be published in 3 issues as two regular and one special issues. These issues will be published In May (regular issue), September (special issue) and December (regular issue).

Acceptance of articles for our special issue and our regular issue in December will begin on March 15.

Only articles within the scope of the file will be included in our special issue. 

Thank you for your attention.