Hey look, two of my classes are overlapping, I love it when that happens!

Toulmin and Socrates; where rhetoric and logic combine.

I was really interested in Toulmin's theory that the new "age" comes after a major assassination such at Henri IV of France and John F. Kennedy. I don't know if I quite agree with that logic but it is interesting nonetheless and definitely something to think about. Toulmin also suggests that the Theoretical argument is irrelevant in today's society and especially in the study of Rhetoric. After taking half a semester of Logic, the jury is still out, but I think I understand where Toulmin is coming from. Syllogisms are very odd. A valid syllogism does not have to be a logical syllogism and can have true premises with a true conclusion, one true premise and a false premise with a true conclusion etc... It can be very confusing. The book says what Toulmin suggests; "formal logicians consider all arguments to be deficient unless they follow the form of deductive logic" (124). This is very impersonal and does not separate the field of logic from any other field. Syllogisms also do not account for change. There is no change in logic; no grey area. It is or it isn't. Just because something is assumed to be true does not make it true. People and things both have the ability to chance and putting them in a box gives a closure to the situation. Very rarely do people want to open the box and try new ways of thinking. This is not the best way to progress. People should always be exploring and growing in different ways instead of simply defending their views. Arguments should always have evidence behind them before they are implemented. Arguments come from evidence, support and a willingness to allow change. Arguments should not be put into boxes.