Re: ONT 18 Jul 2002 -C- Reflective Logic
In fact, that's why I decided today to unsubscribe.
(Back to looking for the proper unsubscibe address...)
- Jef
----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy Wilmering" <wilmering@charter.net>
To: "Ontology" <ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 2:06 PM
Subject: RE: ONT 18 Jul 2002 -C- Reflective Logic
>
> Please excuse me if this is a minority or even a singleton position, but
> does anybody else on this list read this spam?
>
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
> > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 8:00 AM
> > To: Ontology; Peirce List; SemioCom
> > Subject: ONT 18 Jul 2002 -C- Reflective Logic
> >
> >
> >
> > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> >
> > Note 9
> >
> > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> >
> > | Each of the three kinds has a different special end ['telos'], and
> > | as there are three kinds of Rhetoric, so there are three special ends.
> > | The end of the deliberative speaker is the expedient or harmful; for
he
> > | who exhorts recommends a course of action as better, and he who
> > dissuades
> > | advises against it as worse; all other considerations, such as
> > justice and
> > | injustice, honour and disgrace, are included as accessory in
> > reference to this.
> > | The end of the forensic speaker is the just or the unjust; in
> > this case also all
> > | other considerations are included as accessory. The end of
> > those who praise or blame
> > | is the honourable and disgraceful; and they also refer all
> > other considerations to
> > | these. A sign that what I have stated is the end which each
> > has in view is the fact
> > | that sometimes the speakers will not dispute about the other
> > points. For example, a
> > | man on trial does not always deny that an act has been
> > committed or damage inflicted
> > | by him, but he will never admit that the act is unjust; for
> > otherwise a trial would
> > | be unnecessary. Similarly, the deliberative orator, although
> > he often sacrifices
> > | everything else, will never admit that he is recommending what
> > is inexpedient or
> > | is dissuading from what is useful; but often he is quite
> > indifferent about showing
> > | that the enslavement of neigbouring peoples, even if they have
> > done no harm, is not
> > | an act of injustice. Similarly, those who praise or blame do
> > not consider whether
> > | a man has done what is expedient or harmful, but frequently
> > make it a matter for
> > | praise that, disregarding his own interest, he performed some
> > deed of honour.
> > | For example, they praise Achilles because he went to the aid of
> > his comrade
> > | Patroclus, knowing that he was fated to die, although he might
> > have lived.
> > | To him such a death was more honourable, although life was more
> > expedient.
> > |
> > | Aristotle, "Art of Rhetoric", 1.3.5-6
> > |
> > | Aristotle, "The 'Art' of Rhetoric",
> > | John Henry Freese (trans.), in:
> > |'Aristotle, Volume 22', G.P. Goold (ed.),
> > | William Heinemann, London, UK, 1926, 1982.
> >
> > o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>