Location

Brock University

Document Type

Paper

Start Date

15-5-1997 9:00 AM

End Date

17-5-1997 5:00 PM

Abstract

Aristotle's examples of the fallacy of Figure of Speech (or Form of Expression) are not very convincing to the modern reader. Most fallacy theorists have been happy to omit this fallacy from their accounts. But a study of Figure of Speech will lead one to find connections with twentieth-century analytical philosophy, where the idea that the apparent form of a sentence need not be its real logical form has been prominent. Other interesting issues concern the boundary between ambiguity and invalidity and the use of profiles of dialogue to describe the dialectics of this fallacy.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Response to Submission

John Hoaglund, Commentary on Krabbe

Reader's Reactions

John Hoaglund, Commentary on Krabbe (May 1997)

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS
 
May 15th, 9:00 AM May 17th, 5:00 PM

Who is Afraid of Figure of Speech?

Brock University

Aristotle's examples of the fallacy of Figure of Speech (or Form of Expression) are not very convincing to the modern reader. Most fallacy theorists have been happy to omit this fallacy from their accounts. But a study of Figure of Speech will lead one to find connections with twentieth-century analytical philosophy, where the idea that the apparent form of a sentence need not be its real logical form has been prominent. Other interesting issues concern the boundary between ambiguity and invalidity and the use of profiles of dialogue to describe the dialectics of this fallacy.