Culture & Education | Homepage Figure of speech A figure of speech is the use of a word or a phrase, which transcends its literal interpretation. It can be a special repetition, arrangement or omission of words with literal meaning, or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words in it, as in idiom, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, personification, or synecdoche. Figures of speech often provide emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity. However, clarity may also suffer from their use, as any figure of speech introduces an ambiguity between literal and figurative interpretation. A figure of speech is sometimes called a rhetorical figure or a locution. Rhetoric originated as the study of the ways in which a source text can be transformed to suit the goals of the person reusing the material. The four fundamental operations[edit] The four fundamental operations, or categories of change, governing the formation of all figures of speech are:[1] Examples[edit] Figures of speech come in many varieties.
Sophisme Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Un sophisme est une argumentation à la logique fallacieuse. C'est un raisonnement qui cherche à paraître rigoureux mais qui n'est en réalité pas valide au sens de la logique (quand bien même sa conclusion serait pourtant la « vraie »). À l'inverse du paralogisme, qui est une erreur dans un raisonnement, le sophisme est fallacieux : il est prononcé avec l'intention de tromper l'auditoire afin, par exemple, de prendre l'avantage dans une discussion. Souvent, les sophismes prennent l'apparence d'un syllogisme (qui repose sur des prémisses insuffisantes ou non-pertinentes ou qui procède par enthymème, etc.). Origines du mot[modifier | modifier le code] Le mot sophisme dérive du latin sŏphisma, lui-même issu du grec σόφισμα (sóphisma) : « habileté », « invention ingénieuse », « raisonnement trompeur ». Exemples[modifier | modifier le code] Dans l'emmental, il y a des trous. Plus il y a d'emmental, plus il y a de trous. Tout ce qui est rare est cher,
Fallacy A fallacy is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument.[1][2] A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". Formal fallacy[edit] Main article: Formal fallacy A formal fallacy is a common error of thinking that can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic.[1] An argument that is formally fallacious is rendered invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure. The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. Common examples[edit] Aristotle's Fallacies[edit] Aristotle was the first to systematize logical errors into a list. Whately's grouping of fallacies[edit] Intentional fallacies[edit] Deductive fallacy[edit]
List of Fallacies A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. Formal fallacies[edit] Main article: Formal fallacy Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).[2][3]Argument from fallacy – assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.Base rate fallacy – making a probability judgment based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.[5]Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.[6]Masked man fallacy (illicit substitution of identicals) – the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one. Propositional fallacies[edit]
SCHOPENHAUER'S 38 STRATAGEMS, OR 38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), was a brilliant German philosopher. These 38 Stratagems are excerpts from "The Art of Controversy", first translated into English and published in 1896. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her. Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his or her argument. (abstracted from the book:Numerical Lists You Never Knew or Once Knew and Probably Forget, by: John Boswell and Dan Starer)
The Art of Being Right The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831) (Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu Behalten) is an acidulous and sarcastic treatise written by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in sarcastic deadpan.[1] In it, Schopenhauer examines a total of thirty-eight methods of showing up one's opponent in a debate. He introduces his essay with the idea that philosophers have concentrated in ample measure on the rules of logic, but have not (especially since the time of Immanuel Kant) engaged with the darker art of the dialectic, of controversy. Whereas the purpose of logic is classically said to be a method of arriving at the truth, dialectic, says Schopenhauer, "...on the other hand, would treat of the intercourse between two rational beings who, because they are rational, ought to think in common, but who, as soon as they cease to agree like two clocks keeping exactly the same time, create a disputation, or intellectual contest." Publication[edit] A. Synopsis[edit]
La Dialectique éristique Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Définition[modifier | modifier le code] « La dialectique éristique est l'art de la controverse. » Cet art repose sur la distinction entre la vérité objective d'une proposition et l'apparence de vérité que cette proposition peut prendre aux yeux des disputeurs et des auditeurs. La finalité de cet art est de fournir des moyens pour parvenir à cette dernière apparence, afin de convaincre les auditeurs que l'on a raison, même si l'on a objectivement tort. Causes et fonctions de la dialectique[modifier | modifier le code] Si les hommes étaient honnêtes, il n'y aurait pas de dialectique. la malhonnêteté ;la vanité ;le fait de parler avant de réfléchir ;l'obstination dans l'erreur. Une autre cause est que l'expérience enseigne que lorsque nos arguments en faveur d'une thèse sont réfutés, il pourra toujours se trouver un nouvel argument qui nous donnera finalement raison. Donc, en résumé, il s'agit : Place de la vérité[modifier | modifier le code] 1. 2.
Rhetoric Painting depicting a lecture in a knight academy, painted by Pieter Isaacsz or Reinhold Timm for Rosenborg Castle as part of a series of seven paintings depicting the seven independent arts. This painting illustrates rhetorics. From Ancient Greece to the late 19th century, it was a central part of Western education, filling the need to train public speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments.[4] The word is derived from the Greek ῥητορικός (rhētorikós), "oratorical",[5] from ῥήτωρ (rhḗtōr), "public speaker",[6] related to ῥῆμα (rhêma), "that which is said or spoken, word, saying",[7] and ultimately derived from the verb ἐρῶ (erō), "say, speak".[8] Uses of rhetoric[edit] Scope of rhetoric[edit] Scholars have debated the scope of rhetoric since ancient times. Because the ancient Greeks highly valued public political participation, rhetoric emerged as a crucial tool to influence politics. However, since the time of Aristotle, logic has changed.
Rhétorique Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Au-delà de cette définition générale, la rhétorique a connu au cours de son histoire une tension entre deux conceptions antagonistes, la rhétorique comme art de la persuasion et la rhétorique comme art de l'éloquence. La rhétorique grecque, telle qu'elle fut pratiquée par les sophistes et codifiée par Aristote, se préoccupait principalement de persuader. Dans l'Antiquité romaine, se fait jour une nouvelle conception de la rhétorique comme art de bien dire « bene dicendi scientia » selon les mots de l'orateur romain Quintilien[2]. A l'époque classique, la rhétorique s'étend à l'étude des textes écrits, et notamment aux textes littéraires et dramatiques, la conception romaine de la rhétorique l'emporte progressivement sur la conception grecque. La rhétorique s'est ainsi progressivement restreinte à la stylistique c'est-à-dire à un inventaire de figures relevant des ornements du discours. Histoire de la rhétorique[modifier | modifier le code]
The Self-Attribution Fallacy Intelligence? Talent? No, the ultra-rich got to where they are through luck and brutality. By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 8th November 2011 If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. The findings of the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of a Nobel economics prize, are devastating to the beliefs that financial high-fliers entertain about themselves(1). Such results have been widely replicated. So much for the financial sector and its super-educated analysts. In a study published by the journal Psychology, Crime and Law, Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon tested 39 senior managers and chief executives from leading British businesses(3). The psychopathic traits on which the bosses scored so highly, Board and Fritzon point out, closely resemble the characteristics that companies look for. This is not to suggest that all executives are psychopaths. This is now changing. It felt like history being made. 3. 4.
Figurez-vous que vous avez du style! On pourrait croire que les figures de style sont l’apanage des grands auteurs et des professeurs de français qui prennent plaisir à tourmenter leurs étudiants... Pourtant, chacun de nous emploie quotidiennement plusieurs procédés stylistiques. Sans même y penser, nous agrémentons notre discours de métaphores, de métonymies ou d’ellipses. La plupart du temps, cependant, nous serions incapables de nommer ces figures. C’est pourquoi nous vous invitons à découvrir quelques procédés stylistiques... que vous connaissez peut-être déjà, sans le savoir. Lorsque vous connaîtrez mieux les figures de style, pourquoi ne pas tester vos connaissances et faire une grille de mots croisés sur le sujet?