Logos
Logos (
Background
The Purdue Online Writing Lab clarifies that logos is the appeal to reason that relies on logic or reason, inductive and deductive reasoning.[4] In the context of Aristotle's Rhetoric, logos is one of the three principles of rhetoric and in that specific use it more closely refers to the structure and content of the text itself.[5]
Origins of the term
Logos became a technical term in
Within Hellenistic Judaism, Philo (c. 20 BC – c. 50 AD) integrated the term into Jewish philosophy.[10] Philo distinguished between logos prophorikos ("the uttered word") and the logos endiathetos ("the word remaining within").[11]
The
Despite the conventional translation as "word", logos is not used for a word in the grammatical sense—for that, the term lexis (λέξις, léxis) was used.[14] However, both logos and lexis derive from the same verb légō (λέγω), meaning "(I) count, tell, say, speak".[1][14][15]
In the ancient Greek context, the term logos in the sense of "word" or "discourse" also contrasted with mythos (
Ancient Greek philosophy
Heraclitus
The writing of Heraclitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC) was the first place where the word logos was given special attention in ancient Greek philosophy,[17] although Heraclitus seems to use the word with a meaning not significantly different from the way in which it was used in ordinary Greek of his time.[18] For Heraclitus, logos provided the link between rational discourse and the world's rational structure.[19]
This logos holds always but humans always prove unable to ever understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this logos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep.
—Diels–Kranz, 22B1
For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the logos is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding.
— Diels–Kranz, 22B2
Listening not to me but to the logos it is wise to agree that all things are one.
— Diels–Kranz, 22B50[20]
What logos means here is not certain; it may mean "reason" or "explanation" in the sense of an objective cosmic law, or it may signify nothing more than "saying" or "wisdom".[21] Yet, an independent existence of a universal logos was clearly suggested by Heraclitus.[22]
Aristotle's rhetorical logos
Part of a series on |
Rhetoric |
---|
Following one of the other meanings of the word, Aristotle gave logos a different technical definition in the Rhetoric, using it as meaning argument from reason, one of the three modes of persuasion. The other two modes are pathos (πᾰ́θος, páthos), which refers to persuasion by means of emotional appeal, "putting the hearer into a certain frame of mind";[23] and ethos (ἦθος, êthos), persuasion through convincing listeners of one's "moral character".[23] According to Aristotle, logos relates to "the speech itself, in so far as it proves or seems to prove".[23][24] In the words of Paul Rahe:
For Aristotle, logos is something more refined than the capacity to make private feelings public: it enables the human being to perform as no other animal can; it makes it possible for him to perceive and make clear to others through reasoned discourse the difference between what is advantageous and what is harmful, between what is just and what is unjust, and between what is good and what is evil.[7]
Logos, pathos, and ethos can all be appropriate at different times.[25] Arguments from reason (logical arguments) have some advantages, namely that data are (ostensibly) difficult to manipulate, so it is harder to argue against such an argument. On the other hand, trust in the speaker—built through ethos—enhances the appeal of arguments from reason.[citation needed]
Aristotle comments on the three modes by stating:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds.
The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker;
the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind;
the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself.
Stoics
The Stoics took all activity to imply a logos or spiritual principle. As the operative principle of the world, the logos was
Isocrates' logos
Public discourse on ancient Greek rhetoric has historically emphasized Aristotle's appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos, while less attention has been directed to
In Hellenistic Judaism
Philo of Alexandria
Targums
The concept of logos also appears in the
Christianity
In
, reads:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[35][36][37]
Gnosticism
According to the
Neoplatonism
Plotinus used a trinity concept that consisted of "The One", the "Spirit", and "Soul". The comparison with the Christian Trinity is inescapable, but for Plotinus these were not equal and "The One" was at the highest level, with the "Soul" at the lowest.[44] For Plotinus, the relationship between the three elements of his trinity is conducted by the outpouring of logos from the higher principle, and eros (loving) upward from the lower principle.[45] Plotinus relied heavily on the concept of logos, but no explicit references to Christian thought can be found in his works, although there are significant traces of them in his doctrine.[citation needed] Plotinus specifically avoided using the term logos to refer to the second person of his trinity.[46] However, Plotinus influenced Gaius Marius Victorinus, who then influenced Augustine of Hippo.[47] Centuries later, Carl Jung acknowledged the influence of Plotinus in his writings.[48]
Victorinus differentiated between the logos interior to God and the logos related to the world by creation and salvation.[49]
Augustine of Hippo, often seen as the father of
Islam
The concept of the logos also exists in
ʿAql
One of the names given to a concept very much like the Christian Logos by the classical Muslim metaphysicians is ʿaql, which is the "Arabic equivalent to the Greek
The concept of logos in Sufism is used to relate the "Uncreated" (God) to the "Created" (humanity). In Sufism, for the Deist, no contact between man and God can be possible without the logos. The logos is everywhere and always the same, but its personification is "unique" within each region. Jesus and Muhammad are seen as the personifications of the logos, and this is what enables them to speak in such absolute terms.[57][58]
One of the boldest and most radical attempts to reformulate the neoplatonic concepts into Sufism arose with the philosopher
Ibn Arabi seems to have adopted his version of the logos concept from neoplatonic and Christian sources,
Other Sufi writers also show the influence of the neoplatonic logos.
In Ottoman Sufism, Şeyh Gâlib (d. 1799) articulates Sühan (logos-Kalima) in his Hüsn ü Aşk (Beauty and Love) in parallel to Ibn Arabi's Kalima. In the romance, Sühan appears as an embodiment of Kalima as a reference to the Word of God, the Perfect Man, and the Reality of Muhammad.[65][relevant?]
Jung's analytical psychology
Carl Jung contrasted the critical and rational faculties of logos with emotional, non-reason oriented and mythical elements.[66] In Jung's approach, logos vs eros can be represented as "science vs mysticism", or "reason vs imagination" or "conscious activity vs the unconscious".[67]
For Jung, logos represented the masculine principle of rationality, in contrast to its feminine counterpart, eros:
Woman’s psychology is founded on the principle of Eros, the great binder and loosener, whereas from ancient times the ruling principle ascribed to man is Logos. The concept of Eros could be expressed in modern terms as psychic relatedness, and that of Logos as objective interest.[68]
Jung attempted to equate logos and eros, his intuitive conceptions of masculine and feminine consciousness, with the
In his book
In so far as the spirit is also a kind of "window on eternity"... it conveys to the soul a certain influx divinus... and the knowledge of a higher system of the world, wherein consists precisely its supposed animation of the soul.
And in this book Jung again emphasized that the animus compensates eros, while the anima compensates logos.[72]
Rhetoric
Author and professor Jeanne Fahnestock describes logos as a "premise". She states that, to find the reason behind a
Furthermore, one can appeal to this sense of logic in two ways. The first is through inductive reasoning, providing the audience with relevant examples and using them to point back to the overall statement.[75] The second is through deductive enthymeme, providing the audience with general scenarios and then indicating commonalities among them.[75]
Rhema
The word logos has been used in different senses along with rhema. Both Plato and Aristotle used the term logos along with rhema to refer to sentences and propositions.[76][77]
The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek uses the terms rhema and logos as equivalents and uses both for the Hebrew word dabar, as the Word of God.[78][79][80]
Some modern usage in Christian theology distinguishes rhema from logos (which here refers to the written scriptures) while rhema refers to the revelation received by the reader from the Holy Spirit when the Word (logos) is read,[81][82][83][84] although this distinction has been criticized.[85][86]
See also
- -logy
- Dharma
- Epeolatry
- Imiaslavie
- Logic
- Logocracy
- Logos (Christianity)
- Logotherapy
- Nous
- Om
- Parmenides
- Ṛta
- Shabda
- Sophia (wisdom)
References
- ^ a b Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon: logos, 1889.
- ^ LSJonline.
- ^ J. L. Heiberg, Euclid, Elements,
- ^ "Using Rhetorical Strategies for Persuasion". Owl.purdue.edu. Retrieved 2022-03-16.
- ^ "Aristotle's Rhetorical Situation // Purdue Writing Lab". Owl.purdue.edu. Retrieved 2022-03-16.
- ^ Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed): Heraclitus, (1999).
- ^ ISBN 080784473X, p. 21.
- ^ Rapp, Christof, "Aristotle's Rhetoric", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
- ISBN 978-0802836342.
- ^ a b Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd ed): Philo Judaeus, (1999).
- ^ Adam Kamesar (2004). "The Logos Endiathetos and the Logos Prophorikos in Allegorical Interpretation: Philo and the D-Scholia to the Iliad" (PDF). Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies (GRBS). 44: 163–181. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-05-07.
- ^ May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977.
- ISBN 978-0802836342.
- ^ a b Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon: lexis, 1889.
- ^ Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon: legō, 1889.
- ^
Launderville, Dale (2003). "Poetic Truth and the Manifestation of the Divine Source of Royal Authority". Piety and Politics: The Dynamics of Royal Authority in Homeric Greece, Biblical Israel, and Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Bible in Its World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 32. ISBN 9780802845054. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
[... I]n Archaic Greece [...] logos was a form of discourse focused on persuading an assembly, whereas mythos was discourse linked with the authority of a wisdom figure. [...] Emerging Greek philosophical discourse defined its own sphere of authority as reasoned argument over against the imaginative tales of poets and bards: logos was pitted against mythos [...].
- ^ F. E. Peters, Greek Philosophical Terms, New York University Press, 1967.
- ^ W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1962, pp. 419ff.
- ^ The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- ^ Translations from Richard D. McKirahan, Philosophy before Socrates, Hackett, (1994).
- ^ Handboek geschiedenis van de wijsbegeerte 1, Article by Jaap Mansveld & Keimpe Algra, p. 41
- ^ W. K. C. Guthrie, The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to Aristotle, Methuen, 1967, p. 45.
- ^ ISBN 0809315920, p. 120.
- ^ In the translation by W. Rhys Roberts, this reads "the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself".
- ISBN 0226284247, p. 114.
- ISBN 0520202287, p. 64.
- ^ Translated by W. Rhys Roberts, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.mb.txt (Part 2, paragraph 3)
- ^ Tripolitis, A., Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age, pp. 37–38. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
- ISBN 1406701734, p. 53
- ISBN 978-0140441406.
- ^ a b c David M. Timmerman and Edward Schiappa, Classical Greek Rhetorical Theory and the Disciplining of Discourse (London: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010): 43–66
- ^ a b c d Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Volume 1, Continuum, (2003), pp. 458–462.
- ^ Philo, De Profugis, cited in Gerald Friedlander, Hellenism and Christianity, P. Vallentine, 1912, pp. 114–115.
- ^ Kohler, Kauffman (1901–1906). "Memra (= "Ma'amar" or "Dibbur," "Logos")". In Singer, Isidore; Funk, Isaac K.; Vizetelly, Frank H. (eds.). Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. pp. 464–465.
- ^ John 1:1
- ^ John 1:1
- ^ John 1:1
- ^ Alexander Böhlig; Frederik Wisse (1975). Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2 - The Gospel of the Egyptians (the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit) - Volumes 2-3. Brill. Retrieved 2022-09-23.
- ISBN 0791452719, pp. 116–117.
- ISBN 0521060850, pp. 84–101.
- ^ "Between Physics and Nous: Logos as Principle of Meditation in Plotinus", The Journal of Neoplatonic Studies, Volumes 7–8, (1999), p. 3
- ^ Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Carlos Steel
- ^ The Journal of Neoplatonic Studies, Volumes 7–8, Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Binghamton University (1999), p. 16
- ISBN 0198752725p. 311
- ISBN 014044520X p. xcii [1]
- ISBN 1116926296 pp. 89–90 [2]
- ISBN 0664227481 p. 448 [3]
- ISBN 0820427241p. 69
- ^ Theological treatises on the Trinity, by Marius Victorinus, Mary T. Clark, p. 25
- ^ Neoplatonism and Christian thought (Volume 2), By Dominic J. O'Meara, p. 39
- ISBN 0898702356p. 8
- ^ Confessions, Augustine, p. 130
- ^ Handboek Geschiedenis van de Wijsbegeerte I, Article by Douwe Runia
- ^ De immortalitate animae of Augustine: text, translation and commentary, By Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.), C. W. Wolfskeel, introduction
- ^ Gardet, L., "Kalām", in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.
- ^ a b c d Boer, Tj. de and Rahman, F., "ʿAḳl", in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.
- ISBN 0941532755 p. 242 [4]
- ISBN 0873952332p. 148]
- ISBN 8176252662 p. 39 [5]
- ^ Charles A. Frazee, "Ibn al-'Arabī and Spanish Mysticism of the Sixteenth Century", Numen 14 (3), Nov 1967, pp. 229–240.
- .
Ibn al-'Arabi uses no less than twenty-two different terms to describe the various aspects under which this single Logos may be viewed.
- ISBN 978-0813216775.
For Ibn Arabi, the Logos or "Universal Man" was a mediating link between individual human beings and the divine essence.
- ISBN 0415245311, p. xxv.
- ISBN 8176252662 p. 98 [6]
- ^ Betül Avcı, "Character of Sühan in Şeyh Gâlib’s Romance, Hüsn ü Aşk (Beauty and Love)" Archivum Ottomanicum, 32 (2015).
- ISBN 9514108574p. 22
- ISBN 0887066933 p. 4 [7]
- ISBN 0710095228.
- ISBN 9780744800920– via Google Books.
- ISBN 0415048303p. 19
- ^ See the neoplatonic section above.
- ISBN 1583911472 p. 118 [8]
- ^ Fahnestock, Jeanne. "The Appeals: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos".
- ^ a b "Aristotle's Modes of Persuasion in Rhetoric: Ethos, Pathos and Logos". mountainman.com.au.
- ^ a b "Ethos, Pathos, and Logos". Archived from the original on 2013-01-16. Retrieved 2014-11-05.
- ISBN 0878402780 p. 118 [9]
- ISBN 0521565324 p. 29 [10]
- ISBN 0802824048 p. 508 [11]
- ISBN 0802837840 p. 1102 [12]
- ISBN 0664218431 p. 81 [13]
- ISBN 0805426922 p. 162 [14]
- ISBN 1597812943 p. [15]
- ISBN 978-1604774252.
- ISBN 978-1577945802.
- ISBN 0805424539, p. 113.
- ISBN 0310575729, pp. 45–46.
External links
- The Apologist's Bible Commentary Archived 2015-09-10 at the Wayback Machine
- Logos definition and example Archived 2016-06-25 at the Wayback Machine
- Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 16 (11th ed.). 1911. pp. 919–921. .