Alvan Ng
First Tetralogy by Antiphon
“Eikos”
How do you prove that something is not your doing? How do you show that you were never there? Often we can only prove the concrete; we present evidence to prove a point or to prove otherwise, and we base our stand on evidence. Take for example the civil war in Israel between the Israel Defense Forces and the Hamas. The IDF regularly posts material online to show the world what Hamas is doing against itself, providing fact and testimony to back its claims. These methods of rhetoric have been around since the times of Ancient Greece, which were then termed under logos; reason, and ethos; character, respectively. These terms are familiar to us because in most of our essay writing in secondary and tertiary …show more content…
The Ancient Greeks however also had an appeal that we do not see so often anymore, but was regarded as highly, if not higher, as fact and testimony. (Ancient Rhetorics: their differences and the differences they make, Chp 1 Pt 1) This is what we now know as rhetorical reasoning, and was based on eikos; probability. Using probability to justify our arguments in the modern day may seem strange and even weak to us, given the modern day emphasis on rationality, but this was not so in Classical Athens. Such was the regard for the strength of eikos in an argument that it could even be used to argue a case in court in which a man’s life hangs in the balance. One example we can look at to see its use and its workings is The First Tetralogy by Antiphon. The First Tetralogy is an artificial court case which demonstrates and primarily uses eikos to advance the propositions within. Antiphon creates a scenario [a dead man found in a street] that contains either little to no evidence that can be used in a court of law [the only other witness was killed]. Hence even though the case is made up, it becomes an interesting study of how eikos is used to prove both guilt and …show more content…
“…for no one went so far as to risk his life (risk getting caught) would abandon the gain (cloak) he had securely in hand; and yet the victims were still wearing their cloaks when they were found.” Indeed, it seems probable that if a common thief were to be after their cloaks, and had killed them for their cloaks, why then did he not take the cloaks? Hence this quote is meant to conclude or to suggest that it was not a common thief but rather a person with a different motive or reason. As we will see later, he crosses out an array of improbable reasons for the deed which eventually leaves out only the defendant. However, even though this suggestion put forth seems believable, it is also directly countered with another likely and opposing situation as said by the defendant. He claims that the killers might not have removed the cloaks in time when they were potential witnesses approaching; they were prudent by considering their own safety before profit. This argument is also very likely, as the theft of the cloak was considered the most serious street crime in ancient Athens (cit
First Tetralogy by Antiphon
“Eikos”
How do you prove that something is not your doing? How do you show that you were never there? Often we can only prove the concrete; we present evidence to prove a point or to prove otherwise, and we base our stand on evidence. Take for example the civil war in Israel between the Israel Defense Forces and the Hamas. The IDF regularly posts material online to show the world what Hamas is doing against itself, providing fact and testimony to back its claims. These methods of rhetoric have been around since the times of Ancient Greece, which were then termed under logos; reason, and ethos; character, respectively. These terms are familiar to us because in most of our essay writing in secondary and tertiary …show more content…
The Ancient Greeks however also had an appeal that we do not see so often anymore, but was regarded as highly, if not higher, as fact and testimony. (Ancient Rhetorics: their differences and the differences they make, Chp 1 Pt 1) This is what we now know as rhetorical reasoning, and was based on eikos; probability. Using probability to justify our arguments in the modern day may seem strange and even weak to us, given the modern day emphasis on rationality, but this was not so in Classical Athens. Such was the regard for the strength of eikos in an argument that it could even be used to argue a case in court in which a man’s life hangs in the balance. One example we can look at to see its use and its workings is The First Tetralogy by Antiphon. The First Tetralogy is an artificial court case which demonstrates and primarily uses eikos to advance the propositions within. Antiphon creates a scenario [a dead man found in a street] that contains either little to no evidence that can be used in a court of law [the only other witness was killed]. Hence even though the case is made up, it becomes an interesting study of how eikos is used to prove both guilt and …show more content…
“…for no one went so far as to risk his life (risk getting caught) would abandon the gain (cloak) he had securely in hand; and yet the victims were still wearing their cloaks when they were found.” Indeed, it seems probable that if a common thief were to be after their cloaks, and had killed them for their cloaks, why then did he not take the cloaks? Hence this quote is meant to conclude or to suggest that it was not a common thief but rather a person with a different motive or reason. As we will see later, he crosses out an array of improbable reasons for the deed which eventually leaves out only the defendant. However, even though this suggestion put forth seems believable, it is also directly countered with another likely and opposing situation as said by the defendant. He claims that the killers might not have removed the cloaks in time when they were potential witnesses approaching; they were prudent by considering their own safety before profit. This argument is also very likely, as the theft of the cloak was considered the most serious street crime in ancient Athens (cit