A paralogism is the name that receives an explanation that is not true. It is used especially in rhetoric, which has to do with the analysis that is made of the way people speak. Philosophers also use this term a lot to delve into thoughts, an area that has to do with the logic of things.
When studying discourse, paralogisms are part of the group of syllogisms, which are the ideas that are formed thanks to the union of two approaches that lead to a conclusion. This conclusion, in the case of a paralogism, is the one that presents problems and is therefore considered a fallacy.
One of the most important authors on the subject of paralogisms was the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). He made reference to this type of argument in his work Critique of reason.
Currently, many times the term paralogism is not used but simply speaks of a fallacy. This area of rhetoric and philosophy was also addressed by Aristotle.
Today they are resources that are very present in different branches. Advertising uses this method a lot to persuade its audience, as do different political actors.
Article index
The term paralogism comes from the Greek and is given thanks to the union of the concepts 'para', which means beyond, and of 'logos', which refers to reason. This means that a paralogism means that what is exposed is something that is contrary to the rules already established. In short, it is a conclusion that is reached, but that is not the true.
At the end of the 20th century, around the 80s, the study of paralogisms had a boom. The Frenchman Jean-François Lyotard made it possible to put aside the theory of this resource and then went on to the practical part of its study and use.
Today it is not a widely used or well-known concept. Philosophers or scholars at the linguistic level tend to use the term fallacy much more to refer to paralogisms.
In this sense, it is essential to be able to determine the intention of the sender of the message in order to establish what his purpose is when raising an argument. If you are looking to deceive your receiver then you would be talking about the kind of fallacy that has to do with sophistry.
It is clear then that today paralogisms have the same structure as syllogisms, they are considered fallacies and many authors also define them as sophisms. The reason is that although they may seem like true explanations, the truth is that they are meaningless.
The idea, the concepts and the entire study on paralogisms points almost entirely to the works of Immanuel Kant and to the approach he made on the philosophical and rhetorical resource. In his work Transcendental dialectic There is a part in which he spoke about reason and it was there that he tried to define at least two types of paralogisms.
Kant came to establish that there were formal paralogisms and another type that referred to the transcendental.
Latin America also had authors who delved into the study of paralogisms. Carlos Vaz Ferreira (1872-1958), a philosopher of Uruguayan origin, was one of the most important characters in this regard.
He spoke of the resource of paralogism in rhetoric as a phase of certain chaos, composed of failures at the mental and knowledge level instead of errors at the level of discourse as other authors assume.
To begin with, one must be careful when confusing a paralogism with a sophistry. Although many authors sometimes compare and refer to them as the same, they have some differences (obviously also similarities).
To begin with, they are statements that cannot be considered true; which means that the conclusion reached after raising the premises is fallacious. Both have the same structure and, in this sense, are the same as syllogisms or enthymemes, which are statements that omit a premise because it can be inferred.
Now, the big difference is in the intention of the sender of the message when formulating his argument. Paralogisms are not intended to mislead the recipient of the message by posing an idea that is not true. The error occurs because of a bad analysis or an incorrect reflection. Contrary to what happens with sophistry.
Then, there are differences depending on the type of paralogism that occurs. Some depend on the way the argument is stated, while other paralogisms focus on the erroneous content that is posed..
The paralogisms are made up of two approaches (one main and the other secondary) that allow a conclusion to be reached.
Classifying the paralogisms depends a lot on the authors. In this sense, there are three types in which most scholars agree, although they usually refer to them as fallacies.
To begin with, there are the formal paralogisms that have to do with the process of analysis or reflection of the sender of the message..
Then, there are those that are not considered formal and that in turn are divided into two other types: ambiguous and relevant..
Aristotle spoke a lot about the first in his works. It has to do with problems with language use or differences in languages. Paralogisms can happen because terms are confused or because of the different meanings they can take.
By relevance it has a lot to do with the structure of this type of fallacy. To begin with, if the paralogisms have two premises, the major and the minor, when a fallacy occurs by relevance it is because there is no correct relationship between the two premises that are used. Therefore, the conclusion reached at the end has no sense or logic to support.
There are many paralogisms that can be given in this way. It can happen when trying to refute an idea and instead of doing it with valid arguments, what is done is attacking the other participant. Although the attacks can sometimes be against some of the interlocutors or against the context in which they are.
It can also happen when you want to impose an argument by force. In the end, authors such as the American philosopher Irving Marmer Copi, in his work Introduction to logic, spoke of this type of atinence fallacy, in which paralogisms can occur for 18 different reasons.
-- When I went to live in Argentina I stopped drinking coffee and started drinking mate. You can't imagine how my dust allergy got better.
In this case, to begin with, you have to determine the intention of the sender of the message. If you constructed the argument to mislead the receiver in any way, then it should be considered a sophistry, but if you had no intention of misleading then it is a paralogism.
In addition, it is a fallacious argument because the cure for dust allergies does not depend in any way on the drinks you drink. In this example a cause and effect process was established that is not real.
Yet No Comments