SubscribeThis is one of those issues that is catnip to the adolescent language-lover but which a sensible person grows out of. I too used to enjoy tormenting people with the "truth" about the phrase, but I eventually realized that, whatever its origins in philosophy and petitio principii, I had never seen or heard the phrase used "correctly" except by people making a point of doing so (cf. "hoi polloi"); in current English usage, "beg the question" means 'raise the question,' and that's that. I got over it, and so should Safire. (An anguished appraisal by the earnest Michael Quinion of World Wide Words ends by saying the phrase is "better avoided altogether"; like Fowler's similar recommendation concerning "hoi polloi," this counsel of despair is a sign that the language has sailed on, leaving wistful archaists treading water and clutching at the stern.)Now can we talk about circumcising cats or something?
I might also point out that my own brief post about this delightful cartoon got the following response from an actual philosopher:As a philosopher by profession, I can confirm that begging the question is very much in active use as a technical term, and also that we get very annoyed when people [mis]appropriate it.So there you go: you can talk about petitio principii or circular arguments if you want to be philosophically precise; the only reason for using this absurd phrase is to be pedantic.
Like many other terms in logic, as also in rhetoric, it has a winding and obscure trajectory through ancient and mediaeval times to the present day. In my opinion the use of such ill-bred terms renders needlessly difficult the teaching of informal logic (or critical reasoning as it gets called - as if there were any other sort of reasoning). Begging the question deserves to be misused, because it is a stupidly misleading term in the first place. [Emphasis added—LH]
My approach is never to use it in ordinary discourse, and in fact hardly ever to use it in technical contexts either, because it refers to a theoretically problematic notion anyway. In ordinary discourse I prefer to speak of raising a question; and in technical contexts I prefer to speak of circular arguments.
This is sometimes called “circular reasoning.” For example:Is it just me or is this not an instance of begging the question? This looks like a legitimate syllogism to me. Whether you accept the premises or not is a separate matter.
* You wouldn’t have come to the Non-Expert unless you were really desperate.
* You have come to the Non-Expert.
* Therefore, you are desperate.
My conclusion—“you are desperate”—is not very convincing here, because I have assumed in my argument precisely what I claim to be proving.
Realize that language changes, that no one person owns it, and relax. Your English is fine; so is the next guy's. Any native speaker knows his or her own language.I'm not convinced that this is so. I think it's entirely possible for a majority of native speakers to be incorrect.
Of course you do; almost everyone who hasn't studied linguistics does.[...]So in discussion of a circular reasoning, we have a circular argument for why native speakers can't be mistaken: they're right because they're native speakers and native speakers define the spoken language.
[...] But facts are facts, and the only scientific meaning for "correct" when it comes to grammar is "what native speakers say." It is possible for native speakers to make mistakes, of course; we all misspeak from time to time. But it is impossible for native speakers to consistently get the grammar of their native language (or dialect) wrong, because the grammar of that language is simply an abstract summary of the way they use it.
It was that memorable day, in the first Summer of the late War, when our Navy ingag'd the Dutch: a day wherein the two most mighty and best appointed Fleets which any age had ever seen, disputed the command of the greater half of the Globe, the commerce of Nations, and the riches of the Universe. While these vast floating bodies, on either side, mov'd against each other in parallel lines, and our Country men, under the happy conduct of his Royal Highness, went breaking, by little and little, into the line of the Enemies; the noise of the Cannon from both Navies reach'd our ears about the City: so that al men, being alarm'd with it, and in a dreadful suspence of the event, which we knew was then deciding, every one went following the sound as his fancy led him; and leaving the Town almost empty, some took towards the Park, some cross the River, others down it; all seeking the noise in the depth of silence.Clearly, Dryden is borderline illiterate. I mean, would you look at that run-on sentence? That weird capitalization? The overuse of contractions? That colon is out of place, and that last semicolon should have a complete clause after it. Not to mention, "suspense" is spelled wrong, "countrymen" should be one word, "al" needs an extra "l," and there's a usage error with "wherein."
("Essay of Dramatick Poesie," 1668)
« Older In 1855, Frenchman Joseph Fortuné Petiot-Gro... | World Press Photo of the year ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by phrontist at 11:14 PM on February 8, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]