George Campbell, The Philosophy of Rhetoric – Book I, pp. 23-30, 54-83, 93-134

 

(Campbell)

            (Davis)

Background:

George Campbell, who lived from 1719 to 1796, was once called “‘the Philosophical theologian of the Church of Scotland,’” and his work The Philosophy of Rhetoric was called “the most important treatise on the New Rhetoric that the eighteenth century produced” (Bitzer 139). His work incorporated aspects of other philosophers, including the Enlightenment figure David Hume, who was Campbell’s contemporary, living from 1711 to 1776 (Bitzer 139). As Lloyd F. Bitzer argues,

Major elements of Hume’s view – including the primacy of imagination and feeling, the attitudes of empiricism and scepticism [sic], the doctrine of the association of ideas, the process of experience and, above all, the analysis of belief – were taken over by Campbell . . . and became constituents of his own framework. (140)

Campbell, the son of a Presbyterian minister, followed in his father’s footsteps, but not in the traditional manner.  Though he was an ordained Scottish Presbyterian minister, he was initially trained as a lawyer before turning to more religious pursuits.  He was a minister, educator, philosopher, and was an integral part of the Scottish Enlightenment period (George Campbell (1719 –1796), Scottish Philosopher).

Main Ideas in The Philosophy of Rhetoric:

Campbell’s philosophy of rhetoric was focused on the awareness of human nature (i.e. the way people think, act, and feel ( Lamoureux) using common sense and practicablity.  He was especially concerned with ideas of intellectualism and how the speaker should be attentive to the audience’s perception and understanding of the presented material. Campbell was interested in the psychology of rhetoric because one of the goals of the speaker was to get at the audience’s emotions.  To achieve this goal the speaker needed to be sincere, possess good intentions, and realize that emotions are extremely important because they can easily overtake rationality. 

Teaching Application:  This idea could also be applied to composition class in that the instructor needs to appeal to the students using a variety of means to engage them emotionally and intellectually so they act upon these feelings.  Although the purposes for speaking may change (i.e. persuade, inform, convince, etc.), the goal should always be to reach the audience.  In composition class, students will encounter similar scenarios that speakers deal with and they will need to be able to imagine what they want their readers to take from their writing.  This book is directly relatable to the Enlightenment period in that science and rhetoric are combined, but not at the expense of losing the resonating power of the emotional appeal.

Ch. 1: Eloquence Defined

In his first chapter, Campbell begins by saying, “In speaking, there is always some end proposed, or some effect which the speaker intends to produce in the hearer” (23). Eloquence, Campbell says, is the talent for adapting speech to its intended end (23). Campbell argues that there are four ends of speech, and every speaker wishes to:

•     “enlighten the understanding”;

•     “please the imagination”;

•     “move the passions”; or

•     “influence the will.” (23)

These purposes of speech are connected: “Knowledge,” he writes, “the object of the intellect, furnisheth [sic] materials for the fancy; the fancy culls, compounds, and, by her mimic art, disposes these materials so as to affect the passions ; the passions are the natural spurs to volition or action, and succeed only to be rightly directed” (24). So, knowledge provides ability for imagination, and imagination is necessary for emotion, and then emotions may influence a person’s will.

Of these, influencing the will is the “most complex” for Campbell (26). He argues that “the argumentative and the pathetic incorporated together” are necessary for successfully influencing an audience’s will (26). It is not only logic and argument that go into influential rhetoric, but pathos (27). These taken together Campbell discusses as sublime, referring to Longinus, “that great master” of rhetoric (28).

For instance, “Mom, I’d really like it if you would stop drinking in the morning. I read a reliable study that says it can shorten women’s lifespans. And since I love you, I want you to be around as long as possible.” This incorporates knowledge (a study), emotion (love), imagination (thinking of death), and persuasion of the will (please stop doing this).

Ch. 4: How Eloquence Relates to Logic and Grammar

Using the analogy of soul to body, Campbell argues that logic is the part of rhetoric that is used in a speaker’s “sense,” and grammar is the part used in a speaker’s “expression” (54). Logic matters because it produces the sense of truth in an audience. Truth is important because “doubts, disbelief, and mistake will . . . obstruct the speaker’s end” (55), and the speaker’s end is the point of the speaker’s activity, as discussed in chapter 1.Therefore, logic is universally applied whereas grammar is more focused and specific. 

Campbell also usefully compares grammar and logic to the mason and the architect: the architect designs, using his sense, meaning logic, and the mason builds, using building blocks, foundation, and the like, meaning grammar, or the structure of the language.  

Ch. 5: Evidence

Campbell discusses two types of evidence used in rhetoric: intuitive and deductive (57).

Intuitive evidence comes from three main sources:

•     “intellection” (57), as in mathematical truths;

•     “consciousness” (59-60); and

•     “common sense” (60-65).

Deductive evidence, also called by Campbell “rational” evidence (65), comes from either:

•     “invariable properties or relations of general ideas”; or

•     “the actual . . . connexions, subsisting among things” (65).

The first is called demonstrative evidence; the second is called moral evidence, which are:

•     for demonstrative evidence, “pure intellection”; and

•     for moral evidence, “the principles we have from consciousness and  common sense improved by experience” (65).

Moral evidence is based on:

•     experience, “or the tendency of the mind to associate ideas under the notion of causes, effects, or adjuncts” (72);

•     analogy, which is weaker than direct experience (75);

•     testimony, “either oral or written” (78), which is “a serious intimation from another of any fact or observation, as being what he remembers to have seen, or heard, or experienced” (79); and/or

•     calculations of chance, which is “balancing the possibilities on both sides” (79) as a predictive measure of what might happen in a given situation.

Campbell ends this chapter by arguing for the superiority of demonstrative, or “scientific” evidence, as demonstrative evidence has a solidity of truth that moral evidence doesn’t: “in moral reasoning . . . there still remains a physical possibility of the falsity of the conclusion” (80, 83).

Ch. 7: Speakers Should Consider the Audience

Campbell begins by saying, “Rhetoric . . . not only considers the subject, but also the hearers and the speaker” (93). Hearers, or the speaker’s audience, are “men in general” or “men in particular” (93). Any audience must be engaged by the speaker in “all those different powers of the mind, the imagination, the memory, and the passions” (94). This doesn’t mean reason and logic are not important; it means that these other aspects of the mind are reason’s “handmaids,” which help “usher truth into the heart” (94). Something “felt” will be more readily remembered and persuasive, and the speaker’s purposes will be better met (94).

Again, Campbell discusses how a rhetorician must appeal to the audience’s:

•     "understanding;

•     imagination;

•     memory; and

•     passions" (95-103).

Of these, Campbell focuses on the passions, and the aspects necessary to successfully appeal to the passions are:

•     probability;

•     plausibility;

•     importance;

•     proximity of time;

•     connection of place;

•     relation of the actors to the audience or speaker; and

•     the interest of the audience or speaker (103-04, 104-15).

Sometimes, unfavorable passions might be aroused in a speaker’s audience. To be effective, the speaker should quell these bad emotional responses. Campbell argues that the two ways a speaker might do this are:

•    "getting rid of, or reducing, whatever caused those unfavorable passions; or

•     causing some other passion in the audience that would work against that   unfavorable one" (115).

Ch. 8-9: “Men in particular” and the Speaker Him/Herself

Campbell writes that by “men in particular,” he means that the speaker should “suit himself to” “the special character of the audience” (117). It’s good advice to adapt speech to one’s audience.

In considering him- or herself, a speaker must arouse sympathy in the audience, to effectively play on the passions of the audience (118). Sympathy can be lessened when the audience either:

•     "thinks badly of the speaker’s intellect; or

•     judges the speaker’s morals to be low" (119).

Ch. 10: Different Kinds of Public Speaking

Campbell usefully acknowledges three kinds of public speaking a speaker might engage in:

•     "preaching or speaking in a church;

•     speaking in a Senate or official capacity; and

•     speaking to people informally in a bar" (121).

Each of these require of the speaker an understanding of:

•     "himself" (121-24);

•     "the audience" (124-26);

•     "the subject being spoken about" (126-28);

•     "the occasion or event of the speech" (128-30); and

•     "the ends, or purposes, of the speech" (130-34).

[Application / teaching:]

To be effective in a court of law, for instance, a speaker would need to:

•     refer to him- or herself properly;

•     understand the judges, lawyers, or other officials that may be listening;

•     be prepared on the topic at hand;

•     understand why the court session is being held and adapt accordingly; and

•     deliver speech catered to the particular purposes the speaker wants to    achieve.

In an informal party setting, if a person wanted to tell a story to other party-goers and make them laugh, the same considerations would apply, just adapted to the party setting, the audience of party-goers, and the purpose (to be funny, to make others laugh, or to use humor to break the ice or make others comfortable). These would be quite different from the purposes at hand in delivering testimony at a House of Representatives meeting, in which humor might be used, but would not be the goal—and the audience would be quite different, and so on.

(Intermission)

 

(Yankovic)

Alexander Bain, English Composition and Rhetoric – 24-26, 142-146 

While not a household name, Scottish born Alexander Bain was an extremely prolific educator and writer. His corpus of works improved and added new concepts which were influential in shaping nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first century thought. Even though, during his life he was most known for his efforts in the fields of philosophy, logic, grammar, and education his most enduring accomplishments were arguably in the area of psychology. Below, will focus on a sampling of his work, found in the text English Composition and Rhetoric.

         (Bain)

1850 Bain sports a righteous set of mutton chops.

Background:

• "1818 born in Aberdeen Scotland
• 1836 enrolls in Marischal College Scotland
• 1839 begins to contribute to the Westminster Review (philosophy)
• 1845 professor, mathematics/natural philosophy, Andersonian University of Glasgow
• 1848 moves to London
• 1855 first major work published The Senses and the Intellect
• 1859 The Emotions and the Will published

    * Begins to become noted in the field of psychology

• 1860 University of Aberdeen (Scotland) appointed Chair of Logic, while teaching English

    * Oversees the preparation of new textbooks on English grammar

• 1867 English Composition and Rhetoric published
• 1876 establishes the journal Mind, still an active psychological publication
• 1868 Manual of Mental and Moral Science published
• 1870 a textbook on Logic published" ("Alexander Bain 1818-1903")

Main Ideas in English Composition and Rhetoric

"Preface"

Bain introduced his text with a discussion on how to “methodize instruction in English Composition” (3).  He identifies two primary areas:

• “To cultivate in [students] a copious fund of expression” (3), and

• "Render more delicate their discrimination of good and ill effects” (3). The first area cannot be taught because it comes only with maturity and life experience.  The second area, however, is where the instructor must act as “a trainer” who “impart[s]” a “compass” to guide the student (3).

Additionally, he delineated FIVE different types of composition:

• Description, which requires using a “well-defined method” (4);
• Narrative, involving “the laws of Historical Composition” (4);
• Exposition, primarily “belong[ing] to Science” (5);
• Oratory (Persuasion), “the art of Proof, or Logic” (5); and
• Poetry, pertaining to “matters of interest to human feeling” (5);

Further, he argued the best way to teach students was to put into practice the good effects of composition by examining and applying edits to strong writing samples that are “imperfectly worded” (6).

"Rhetoric"

Bain opens this brief section with the following: “Rhetoric discusses the means whereby language, spoken or written, may be rendered effective” (19).  The purpose of speaking is to either “inform, persuade, or please” and these “correspond to” human:

• Understanding – impacted by descriptive, narrative, and expository styles of writing or speaking
• Will – influenced by persuasive writing or speaking; and
• Feelings – impacted most by poetry

Similtudes

The dictionary describes similtudes as "the quality or state of being similar to something" ("similitude"). Bain's definition is a bit more elaborate and includes methods on how to enhance the "subject:" 

"The tracing of resemblances among the objects and events of the world, is a constant avocation of the human mind. However, if from some cause or other, a 'subject' is but dimly conceived, one mode of assisting the mind, is to bring forward something of the same kind that we already 'understand'" (22).

"And now for something completely different" (Cleese).

(Food Pyramid Pizza)

                            (subject)           (something understood)

Although Bain did not have a food pyramid (subject) or pizza (something understood) available to make a similarity analogy, we here in the twenty-first century can utilize them (pyramid/pizza) to summarizes Bain's concept of similtudes.

• "The resemblance (pizza) should turn on the relevant circumstance (food pyramid)" (26).

       - Pizza is shaped like a pyramid, it contains all the essential food groups, it            has layers - it is a resemblance of the pyramid

• "The comparison (pizza) should be more intelligible than the thing compared (food pyramid)" (26).

        - Clearly, pizza is more intelligible than the food pyramid

• "Accompanying circumstances (pizza) should not distract the mind from the real point (food pyramid)" (26).

        - Pizza would never distract a normal person from thoughts of the                        nutritious food pyramid

The above said, Bain notes the items below are the most common faults in the use of figures of similarity, and are most likely to occur when they are most profusely employed.

• While the "figure employed should be more intelligible, it should not be more impressive than the plain form of expression" (26).

        - The food pyramid with all of its delectable options is obviously more                    impressive than a slice of pizza

• "The degree of elevation should be within bounds that the hearer (or viewer) can tolerate" (26).

        - Pizza is easily tolerated

• The similitude should be neither obvious nor trite" (26).

        - Pizza can be overused and consequently of be of little import

The Paragraph: “a collection of sentences with unity and purpose” (142).

Paragraphs accomplish unity and purpose through not just content, but also an author’s use of conjunctions and transitions.  The following are examples of these elements:

General Conjunctions:

Bain describes Cumulative conjunctions as when an author “add[s] a new statement having the same bearing as what preceded” (142).  Examples include:

• and, also, so, likewise, besides, then, too, firstly, etc.

Adversative Conjunctions “indicate the mutual bearing of consecutive sentences” (143).  These occur in two forms:

• Exclusive – i.e. else, otherwise
• Alternative – i.e. or, nor

Illative Conjunctions “indicate effect or consequences” (143).  Examples:

• therefore, wherefore, hence, consequently, thus, so

Another cohesive writing tool is words that serve for reference (144). 

• There are words that indicate a return after a digression, i.e. to return, to proceed, to resume;
• Words that sum up, i.e. in short, in conclusion, in a word, to sum up, to recapitulate;
• And words that transition, i.e. hitherto, formerly, thus far, so far.

Subordinating Conjunctions “join a subordinate clause to a principal in the same sentence” (144). These include:

• because, if, that, in order that, provided, when (144)

Sometimes conjunctions are omitted because the connection between clauses is obvious (making is “superfluous”) or too distant (making it “absurd”) (146).  

All of the above elements combine to enhance the unity of a paragraph which must open with a sentence that “indicate[s] with prominence the subject of the paragraph” (150).

____________________________________________________

BROUGHT TO YOU BY

                           (Sam)                (Bryan)             (Joy)              (Mark)                            

                                                                                                                                                                                   (Beatles)

References:

"Alexander Bain 1818-1903." International Association for Scottish Philosophy. International Association for Scottish Philosophy , n.d. Web. 24 May 2015.

Alexander Bain - Philosopher. 2015. Photograph. The Famous PeopleWeb. 24 May 2015.

Bain, Alexander. Rhetoric A Manual. 1st ed. D. Appleton & Co., 1867. 24-26/142-146. eBook.

Beatles, . Paperback Writer - The Beatles. 2008. Video. YouTubeWeb. 24 May 2015.

Bitzer, Lloyd F. “Hume’s Philosophy in George Campbell’s Philosophy of Rhetoric.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 2.3 (1969): 139-66. JSTOR. PDF file.

Campbell, George. "Book I: The Nature and Foundations of Eloquence." The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1868. 23+. Internet Archive. Web. 9 May 2015.

Cleese, John. "John Cleese > Quotes > Quotable Quote."Goodreads. Goodreads Inc, n.d. Web. 24 May 2015.

"Food Pyramid Pizza." Twirl it. Rebellion Media Group Corp, n.d. Web. 24 May 2015.

George Campbell 2 Minute Thinker. By Paul R. Davis. YouTube, 2012.

George Campbell on Evidence for Christianity. 2012. Painting. Apoligetics 315Web. 24 May 2015.

"George Campbell (1719 –1796), Scottish Philosopher." International 
Association for Scottish Philosophy, 2009-2013. Web. 13 May 2015.

Intermission. 2015. GIF. Wiffle GIFWeb. 24 May 2015.

Lamoureux, Ed.  “George Campbell.” COM 303 Rhetorical Perspectives in Organization Communication.  Bradley University, Peori, IL. 2011.  Web 9 May 2015.

"similitude." Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 25 May 2015.

Yankovic, Al. Word Crimes. 2014. Video. YouTubeWeb. 24 May 2015.

Other References of Interest:

Burks, Don M. “The Most Significant Passage in George Campbell’s Philosophy of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 13.1 (1983): 15-17. JSTOR. PDF file.

Walzer, Arthur E. “On Reading George Campbell: ‘Resemblance’ and ‘Vivacity’ in the Philosophy of Rhetoric.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 18.3 (2000): 321-42. JSTOR. PDF file.

Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica, . "Alexander Bain ."Encyclopedia Britanica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., n.d. Web. 25 May 2015.

Young, Robert. "Mind, Brain and Adaptation in the Nineteenth Century: Cerebral Localization and Its Biological Context from Gall to Ferrier."Robert M. Young Online Archive. The Human Nature Review, 28 May 2005. Web. 25 May 2015.