Mastering the Tools of Thought and Expression
Unit II: Prepping for Argument

Lesson 8-9

Complete & Continue Next Lesson Learn More

IN THIS LESSON

Agenda

These two lessons allow you some catch-up time.

Collect ML 3 questions—give them time to ask questions/revise in class before collection.

Homework

  • Quill

  • Read Material Logic lesson 4; exercises (two days for this)

Notes

1. Review Grammar: I will review grammar (simple subject/predicate, basic assertions, etc)...do they understand the basic idea of even simple sentences having implicit propositions? This can be tied to the three acts of the mind (Material Logic text, Lesson 3):

Simple sentences are often about simple apprehension, and each part of even the simplest sentence has many propositions under each term; think of each part of the sentence as expressing existence in some way. Apprehension: conceptualization of something in existence (think of it as almost passive, or a joining with the thing being apprehending, a receiving). Simple apprehension is through the senses...we can also apprehend abstract things, but usually based on prior simple apprehension. We CAN misapprehend and at this level, it is just a mistake, not truth or falsity.

Another way to look at simple sentences is that they are all judgments. Judgment is the area in which we affirm/deny (affirming or denying the existence of something IS a judgment and has truth/falsity attached), so all the fundamental sentences (being, linking, action) are at the level of judgment. Compound sentences can be just the addition or comparison of judgments in some cases, a kind of list; of course this is usually in the context of reasoning (ie, why we are adding these judgments together, why they relate).

Reasoning proper happens grammatically at the level of the sentence in a compound/complex situation, when we combine sentences via logical conjunctions and through that relationship, reach a conclusion.

2. Intro to Style: Then I will intro the idea of poetics and rhetorical/literary devices (style) with some humour…analogies are a logical tool, but also a way to connect unlike kinds of things, usually one thing that is more familiar to an audience with something that is more complex…this functions as a creative comparison which is supposed to help a reader understand something or to experience something. It is part of logic, but it is also part of style. I use funny versions first, just for fun. 

3. Hemingway: I then bring in a section of Hemingway’s prose from “A Big Two-Hearted River” and the goal here is to show them that a great writer can even use simple syntax for a deeper reason, to create an effect that is as important as the basic plot. I give them some context for the “Nick Adams” stories (they are semi-biographical, a way for Hemingway to talk about what it was like to return from the Great War–an early poetic argument about the reality of PTSD–even though I don’t think there was even yet a name for it). I give them the first couple of pages, and we read it aloud…I ask them to listen for a series of short, simple sentences. When we find one, we’ll analyse them for both underlying propositions and the effect (stream of consciousness at an almost childlike level–what might this effect show you about the character?). 

The syntactical/paradigmatical grid has to do with the complexity of syntax in tension with the generality/specificity of terms. You can use this as a tool now or a little later when you’re working on Frazier. 

4. Logic Fun: Rotary phone (if time left): I have a rotary phone, and I give them an experience of moving through the three acts of the mind: apprehension, judgement, reasoning (induction, deduction). First, they will know it is a phone. Ask them to stop and think about what elements were there that clued them in (parts they’ve seen in movies or as symbols: whole/part definition, deduction). Ask them if they noticed any time between their attempts to apprehend, the apprehension, and then the affirmative judgement. Did anything, any part of the phone make them question their apprehension and make a negative or unsure judgement? 

Second, when they tried to use it, what did they do? A lot of people don’t pick up the handset like you are supposed to do–why? Because they don’t have to do that anymore…to activate the phones now, they touch screens. So their induction (general conclusion from multiple examples/experiences) might be off. 

Then, they’ll try to use deduction to figure out how to use the rotary. They will have the premise that phones require signals for numbers, and this is a phone, so it requires a signal…but because of faulty induction, they won’t know how to make it work and they’ll start experimenting to correct the induction—because their deduction IS correct. I tell them that the term “rotary” is a definition clue….maybe the signal happens through rotation. Eventually, they will, through experimentation, get it (corrected induction and deduction from the meaning of rotary).