Author: William Bauser, Professor of Philosophy - Dean College Franklin USA (1990-2006), Member of the Board of Directors - Stop Organ Trafficking NOw Lovettsville, USA
Keywords: Ramus, Method, Persoanlism, Populism, Common Sense, Anti-Realism
The current age of social political discourse has become the rhetoric of the civics ratio to argue qui me horros perfundit their factional populism, personalism and common sense beliefs. The passion of their political rhetoric has exercised the Ramistic tradition of argument with the intent of winning at all costs as the emotional intelligence of what the particular political faction maintains as a mission statement of a similar identity of the imperceptible truth argument that becomes the verbiage of cultural experiences as conflict of personal beliefs rather than as an inquiry into the truth of humanities enrichment and enhancement. These cultural conflicts are not a sciences of the polity but are a
willful desire to either attain national or individual advantage over the freedom of the intellect to pursue the betterment of mankind. This current social political discourse is a typical example of the anti-intellectualism that has continually rewarded the anti reasoning of mankind’s inhumanity to mankind.
The Ramistic method can be said to have been devised as an attempt at a practical reform of the Aristotelian works of logic and rhetoric. As a method of practical attempts at revising rhetoric and logic as a consistent and natural dialogue, Ramus focused upon his anti- Aristotelian and anti-scholastic perspectives of logic as a purpose of constructing and of the inventing of arguments. By pursuing an anti-Aristotelian and anti-scholastic approach to the construction and invention of arguments, Ramus gives us an insight into his thinking regarding the creative nature of logic and rhetoric.
Ramus perceived the classical form and delivery of logic and rhetoric as a system of what today we would call political correctness. By this, he believed that rhetoric was concerned with a myth of language which was not concerned with the practical ornamental and delivery of language expressed by logical statements. For, rhetoric regards the actual usage of language as a purity of speech as a demonstration of the ability of self-mastery.
As such, Ramus praised the dialectic of Plato as a simple and practical usage of an inductive pedagogic as a means of oral weapons of logic that the words of the mixing of the arts do not by maintaining the balance of behavior and continuation of the stability of expectations through the actuality of the forms. Ramus states as his attempt to bring rationalization to the practical training of students, “It was my constant study to remove from the path of the liberal arts the briers and rocks, and all intellectual obstacles and retardations, and to make even and straight the way, in order to arrive more easily not only at intelligence, but the practice and use of the liberal arts.” It was Ramus’ intent to rearrange the content of the scholastic interpretations of Aristotle into a contextual form through the purposes of the principles of nature, system and practice.
For Ramus, the training and textual sources that students are given need be based upon the minimum of theory and the maximum of examples by nature and natural senses. Students are not taught how to teach or connect with others knowledge to improve others as well as oneself but are given means to innovate to get ahead. The examples by nature and by the natural senses are examples that are used as what constitutes content that is based upon the observation of nature. Frank Graves makes this point when he gives as an example that Ramus pursues the material for grammar or language study he desires to have derived from actual usage, the ancient tongues from the classical writers, and the modern from the speech of the people. Similarly, he holds that logic should he based upon observation of the human mind, and natural sciences upon the investigation of nature.
For Ramus, content is what is actual usage of what is given in nature through observation and what is observed in nature is not substance but an artifact of a Platonic non natural idea that generates attitudes of emotions. Every content, art, is an imitation of nature that is a construct or innovated experience that is a demonstration of a homogeneous expression of an artifact of nature. Once each art or content is given or told to one and one has experienced the desired information, one can be said to be in control of the usage of the information and were one’s attitudes are muted one can be said to be logical. Once the information is in control, one can systemize the information for the purpose that it is needed. Yet, before we can systemize the information, we need to understand how the person gathers the information.
For Ramus, similar to today’s method of gathering information through visualization, the person collected actual data by the give and take of the Socratic dialectic that not only gave data of the universe but of thinking itself as spatial artifacts that were experienced by seeing is believing. However, what this method invents is an approach that dismisses any dialogue for the demonstration of a performance of objects or surfaces.
Since a syllogism can not found to be able to demonstrate the truth or validity of the usage of words, there is no need to find a balance between acting or feeling. What does matter is the logical demonstration of what is actually given in nature and to the natural senses as what is practical and proper to living and not to what is of theory or of speculative talk. Humanity actually has to deal with the struggles of demonstrating what one desires and not what is the persons `sophrosyne. Consequently, knowing what one is doing is no more part of logic than Aristotle’s ethics. For Ramus, the person has to do what the person has to do to win an argument at all costs. It lies in the person who is the all knowing, all powerful and all goodness of what constitutes reality as anti-realist emotion, perspective or projections of truth and validity.
Since for Ramus, it is the person’s experiences, dignity and status that matters, the systematic approach to these experiences, dignity and status becomes arranged around the universality, homogeneity and primacy `of the deductive rule of were the general should precede the particular. For the person, he or she needs to get smart with what is actually happening in the world and as an event and get with the truth of the populism of the actual world and not some theoretical world. One has to do what one has to do to get ahead at all costs. Since this is not about some theoretical perspective of reality but about what one feels, projects or prescribes about reality that matters, universality is maintaining the truth of the populism of the actual world beliefs. This includes being apocalyptic in nature through the argumentum ad populum .
For example, since the idea that mankind is by chosen fact bias individual , The popular arguments of race, gender, sex, creed and love are universal truths. Any commands of conduct or actions need be relevant to the subject of conversation and to each other to for there to be homogeneity. The only thing that matters is the universal truth and any discourse that talks of substance
or in a critical fashion Is considered as a threat to the universal truth. As long as one can innovate with what is the universal truth one is speaking the universal truth, but once one is critical or creative to alternative truths, one should be denied access to reality. For as much as Ramus was about reform of the liberal arts, he has generated not only an anti-Aristotle but an anti- intellectualism.
Even though Ramus was concerned with the reform of how students learned and applied their material, his humanist algorithm patterns of method were devised to counter the scholastic interpretations of Aristotle’s logic, dialectic and rhetoric. As a humanist reformer, he was concerned with the idea of self-mastery as a Platonic idea of emotional self control of one’s passions. In a pedagogy method of the practicality of the mind and of nature, one can see what Ramus was thinking that the concept of logic consisted in the Timaeus of Plato. Plato tells us regarding the practicality of the mind and of nature that “God invented and gave us sight to the end that we might behold the courses of intelligence in the heaven, and apply them to the courses of our own intelligence which are akin to them, the unperturbed to the perturbed ; and that we, learning them and partaking of the natural truth of reason, might imitate the absolutely unerring courses of God and regulate our own vagaries.”
As such, what was taught was the students ability to argue his position by using what he practically understood as the natural truth of his homogeneous artful experience. And, since there was no syllogism to demonstrate the validity of the artful experience, there
was no connection between the artful experiences except what was germane to he success of an argument based upon the persons own intelligence, capability and self-worth.
Similar today’s social media oral tradition, Ramus’ liberal arts reform was not based upon an inclusive and connection of mankind’s experiences but was based upon a desire to do what has to do to succeed in life without demonstrating any substantive connection between mankind’s experiences but by using what one can use to get one’s way at all costs to the sustainability of mankind through the use of personalistic, populism and common sense beliefs.
Bowne, BP, 1908, Personalism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co
Cooper, JM, 2012, Pursuits of Wisdom: Six Ways of Life in Ancient Philosophy. NJ: Princeton University Press
Duhamel, PA, The Logic and Rhetoric of Peter Ramus. Modern Philology, v46, #3, (Feb.1949) The University of Chicago Press
Graves, FP, 2011, Peter Ramus and the Educational Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Fl: Puritan Publishers
Hamilton, D, 2003, instruction in the making: Peter Ramus and the beginnings of modern schooling. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago 21-25, April 2003
Ong, WJ, 1958, Ramus, method, and the Decay of Dialogue, MA: Harvard University
Pufendorf, vonSF, 2003, The Whole Duty of Man, according to the natural law of Nature. B.Toole (trans.) I. Hunter and D. Saunders (eds.), IN: Liberty Fund
Ramus, P. From Arguments in Rhetoric against Quintilan
Read,SN, and Wilson, EA, 2011, Ramus, Pedagogy and the Liberal Arts. VT: Ashgate Publishing Co.
William W. Bauser is currently a Delegate for the United States and a member of the editorial board for the e-magazine Philosophical Views. I have experience as a developer of an ethical infrastructure and as an ethical consultant in various national and international environments. Breadth of experience encompasses: Financial cost and cost benefit analysis, operational needs’ assessment, teaching and research in curriculum, organizational and human development, mentoring, academic and community leadership and long term strategic planning. Demonstrated record of being a critical and innovative problem solver, manager and visionary, assessor of development, evaluative and research programs, and trainer of diverse populations through the use of cognitive, affective and psychomotor methods. Adept at analyzing diverse viewpoints to build a consensus regarding a contextual situation. I also have experience in board, leadership, governance, organization, evaluation innovation training and development and community interaction. I have also demonstrated a philosophical methodology that has been used for curriculum development and curriculum design. I have taught courses that have brought forth theology, professional ethics, of the Ancient, modern and contemporary perspectives in faculty development, committee work through texts and social media.