In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 3 is concerned with Category II arguments; in particular, rhetorical induction or the paradigm argument. It shares with other Category II arguments the fact that it begins with data on individuals or groups and that it is possible to formulate a general principle that governs the data. It is distinct from other Category II arguments in that no general principle is stated; the conclusion is always particular. The paradigm argument is discussed in the context of two puzzles. The first puzzle, how a general principle figures at all in the paradigm argument, Ryan solves with the help of a chapter from the Prior Analytics. Puzzle Two deals with Aristotle's apparently two distinct readings of paradigm argument. Rather than read Aristotle as claiming that paradigm argument be reducible to one among many sources of enthymemes, Ryan defends an interpretation which assigns the enthymeme and paradigm argument equivalent roles. They are the two basic types of argument in rhetorical argumentation. By the end of chapter 3, Ryan has marshalled impressive support for his position. A merit of the brief chapter 4 is that Ryan manages to present a clear account of refutation without too much detail. Nothing Aristotle says about refutation places Ryan's interpretation in jeopardy. As Ryan points out, if the enthymeme had a suppressed premise, this assumption would surface in the refutation. Chapter 5establishes that the three elements of language most relevant to rhetorical argumentation (metaphor, the use of ethical language, and periodic style) clarify and support his theory of argumentation. The final chapter demonstrates that Aristotle's principal aim in the Rhetoric is consonant with Ryan'S interpretation. Ryan'S superb exegesis makes his interpretation of Aristotle's theory of rhetorical argumentation quite tenable. (JACQUELINE BRUNNING) Prudence Allen RSM. The Concept of Woman: The Aristotelian Revolution 750 BC-AD 1250 Eden Press. viii, 577. $42.00 When we say that 'male' is the opposite of 'female: what do we mean? How have philosophers defined the differences between men and women? What effect has philosophy had on views ofsex differences in the general population? Allen has attempted to provide answers to these questions through a survey of philosophers and their writings from the pre-Socratics to the theologians of the thirteenth century. She proposes three theories: sex unity, in which the claim is made that women and men are equal and not significantly different, leading to the derivative theory of sex neutrality, which ignores the differences between women and men; sex polarity, HUMANITIES 85 which assumes significant differences between women and men and claims that one sex is superior to the other; and sex complementarity, which claims that women and men are significantly different and equal. Allen considers what philosophers have to say about the role of women and men in generating children, whether wisdom and virtue are the same or different for women and men, and what masculinity and femininity have to do with personal identity. She classifies each philosopher in each of these categories as a proponent of one of the three theories. In such a broad survey, one could find fault with the interpretation of some evidence, especiallyin the case of the pre-Socratics whose works are preserved in quotations by later commentators. Some writings, like those attributed to female Pythagoreans, receive an inordinate amount of attention, considering that some authorities consider them to have been written by men. There are inaccuracies (like the date for Sappho, which is given as fourth century BC, p 15) and - what is particularly disconcerting the spellingof propernames (Kallikroaitos, p 142, appears as Kallidraditas, p 147, lschomachus appears as lsomachus, pp 54ff). These misspellings make it difficult to cross-check references. The analysis and argument are sometimes slowand the points repeated and summarized at several places in each chapter. This makes the book more suitable for reference than for reading through. Allen's conclusion is that the diversity of views held by philosophers aboutwomen and men is replaced in the thirteenth century by the view of Aristotle, who became the authority for the University of Paris and other universities. Aristotle had argued for sex polarity, with women passive and men active, women infertile and imperfect in comparison with...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 84-85
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.