Methods of conviction in rhetoric
Part II
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10886354 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Miklos Maroth (Pázmány Péter Catholic University Department of Classical and Medieval Studies H-2087 Piliscsaba Egyetem u. 1. Hungary, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 50 |
| Issue | 2-3 |
| Pages | 155-162 |
| Publication date | 2010-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0044-5975 • E-ISSN: 1588-2543 |
| Publisher | Akademiai Kiado Zrt. (PUBLISHER • HU) |
| DOI | 10.1556/aant.50.2010.2-3.2 |
| OpenAlex | W1784097358 |
| Language | EN |
The paper examines the meaning of “sign inferences”. First the reader will be reminded that sign inferences were used in all philosophical schools, but the meaning of “sign inference” is different in the various schools. After examining Quintilianus’ text one can come to the conclusion that he spoke of sign inferences in terms of the Aristotelian logic. In Aristotelian logic sign inferences were used to the effect of conviction, but, from point of view of logic, they were not valid. Thus in rhetoric Aristotle intentionally admitted invalid proofs as “rhetoric arguments”
Art · Conviction · Linguistics · Literature · Political science · Rhetoric · Classical Philosophy and Thought · Law · Philosophy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |