THINKER'S ALMANAC - June 2

How can a poem about six blind men teach us to see more clearly?

Subject:  Naive Realism, Hasty Generalization, and the Fallacy of Composition - “The Blind Men and the Elephant”

Event:  Birthday of John Godfrey Saxe, 1816

A Beethoven string quartet is truly, as someone has said, a scraping of horses’ tails on cats’ bowels, and may be exhaustively described in such terms; but the application of this description in no way precludes the simultaneous applicability of an entirely different mode of description. -William James

Today is the birthday of the American poet John Godfrey Saxe, who was born in 1816 in Highgate, Vermont. In addition to being a poet, Saxe was also a lawyer and a politician.  He served as Vermont’s attorney general and twice ran unsuccessfully as governor of his home state.  

As a lawyer, Saxe is known for his famous simile that illustrates the contrast between the unsightly, messy process of watching laws being made versus the product, which is usually more appetizing:

Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made.

Saxe is better known, however, for a poem he wrote in 1873 based on an Indian parable about six blind men who encounter an elephant.  Read the poem, and see if you can identify its lessons about how we perceive and how we interpret our world:

                                                    Image by Mote Oo Education from Pixabay

The Blind Men and the Elephant

It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,

who went to see the elephant (Though all of them were blind),

that each by observation, might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant, and, happening to fall,

against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl:

"God bless me! but the elephant, is nothing but a wall!"

The second feeling of the tusk, cried: "Ho! what have we here,

so very round and smooth and sharp? To me tis mighty clear,

this wonder of an elephant, is very like a spear!"

The third approached the animal, and, happening to take,

the squirming trunk within his hands, "I see," quoth he,

the elephant is very like a snake!"

The fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee:

"What most this wondrous beast is like, is mighty plain," quoth he;

"Tis clear enough the elephant is very like a tree."

The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said; "E'en the blindest man

can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can,

This marvel of an elephant, is very like a fan!"

The sixth no sooner had begun, about the beast to grope,

than, seizing on the swinging tail, that fell within his scope,

"I see," quoth he, "the elephant is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan, disputed loud and long,

each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!

So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,

tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean,

and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen! (2)

Just as the blind men in Saxe’s poem have multiple interpretations of the elephant, different readers might have multiple interpretations of the poem’s moral.

One key theme is naive realism, a concept from social psychology that reminds each of us that although we see the world from our own subjective point of view, we often make the mistake of assuming that our point of view is the single correct and objective point of view.  Those who disagree with us, therefore, must be wrong, biased, or irrational. Each blind man in the poem falsely assumed that his perception was objective; however, the reader understands that the experience and perception of each blind man is limited and, therefore, too subjective to base any conclusions on.

A second key theme is the logical fallacy called hasty generalization.  This is a fallacy of inductive reasoning where we base a conclusion on limited evidence.  For example, just because you don’t speak Italian, no one in your family speaks Italian, and none of your friends speaks Italian does not necessarily mean that no one in your hometown speaks Italian.  Each blind man in the poem jumps to a different false conclusion based on just a single piece of evidence.

A third key theme is a logical fallacy called the fallacy of composition.  This fallacy occurs when we falsely infer that a whole is made up of the same properties as its parts.  Each blind man in the poem, for example, made the mistake of concluding that the part of the elephant that he encountered was representative of the whole.  You might think this is not an error that sighted people make; however, how often have you seen people form stereotypes based on their experience of a part rather than the whole.  If you walk into a store, for example, and you encounter a rude salesperson, you might falsely conclude that the entire business is made up of rude people.  Or maybe you are driving through a small town; as you make observations about what you see, your mind naturally uses the examples to inductively lead you to a general conclusion about the town.  However, because your observations are based on a brief and limited sample, you should recognize that your conclusion is probably more a stereotype than a sound, objective judgment about the town’s character.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason: What are the thinking errors made by the blind men in Saxe’s poem?

Challenge - The Elephant in the Room: Write a brief PSA to challenge your readers/listeners to avoid one of three errors of sloppy thinking: Naive Realism, Hasty Generalization, and the Fallacy of Composition. Assume your audience is unfamiliar with the concept;  give definitions and concrete examples.

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

-June 2, 1989:  The film Dead Poets Society was released on this day. In the film, Robin William plays an influential and eccentric English teacher who challenges his students to think philosophically about their lives rather than conform to society’s expectations.  In the following quote, he challenges his students to see differently:  "Just when you think you know something, you have to look at it in another way. Even though it may seem silly or wrong, you must try."

Sources:

1-Allpoetry.com.  “John Godfrey Saxe.”

2-Saxe, John Godfrey.  “The Blind Men and the Elephant.”  1872 Public Domain.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - June 1

How can the explanations we give about our purchasing decisions help us better understand our own thinking?

Subject:  Confabulation - Sock Study

Event:  Birthday of Richard Eugene Nisbett, 1941

We are shockingly ignorant of the causes of our own behavior. The explanations that we provide are sometimes wholly fabricated, and certainly never complete. Yet, that is not how it feels. Instead, it feels like we know exactly what we're doing and why. This is confabulation: Guessing at plausible explanations for our behavior, and then regarding those guesses as introspective certainties. -Fiery Cushman, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Harvard University

Imagine you are standing outside of a store.  As customers come out of the store with purchased items, you approach some of these people, asking them to explain why they purchased the items that are in their bags.  Which of the two kinds of responses do you think is most likely?   One: A clearly reasoned explanation for why each item was purchased, or Two: A fictional narrative that justifies each purchase? 

Based on the research of psychologist Richard E. Nisbet -- who was born on this day in 1941 -- the second response is probably more likely.

In a classic study, Nisbett and his colleague Timothy Wilson presented subjects with four pairs of nylon stocking pantyhose and asked them to choose the preferred pair.  Once subjects selected the pair they liked, they were asked to explain the rationale behind their selection.  The subjects attributed their choices to a range of qualities, such as workmanship, elasticity, texture, sheerness, weave, and knit.  

                                            Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

The key to the study was one significant factor that Nisbett and Wilson withheld from the subjects:  all four pairs of stockings were exactly the same.  What this means, therefore, is that the explanations provided were not based on relevant evidence; instead, they were made based on plausible arguments that were actually supported by no concrete evidence.  The term that describes this kind of common human behavior is confabulation (from the Latin fabula for story), which means that rather than ground our decisions or choices in factual evidence and reasoning, we instead often weave plausible narratives that explain our behavior.  And we often are so effective at our storytelling that we’re not even aware that we are telling a fictional story rather than the whole truth.

In the sock study, for example, the one factor that was most influential in the selection of stockings was never mentioned by any of the subjects:  the position of the stockings as they were viewed by each subject.  The first pair on the far left of each subject was selected 12 percent of the time, the second pair was selected 17 percent of the time, the third pair was selected 31 percent of the time, and the fourth pair, on the far right, was selected 40 percent of the time.  Based on an assumption that each subject evaluated the stockings in the typical left to right manner, the key factor in selecting the stockings was which pair was viewed most recently.

Studying confabulation can help us understand the reality of how we sometimes lie to ourselves.  We may believe we are giving rational, logical reasons to justify a decision or behavior, but in reality, we may just be confabulating.  Taking a moment to reflect consciously will help us to employ metacognition -- thinking about our own thinking -- to make more reasoned decisions rather than just tell more elaborate fables to justify our decisions.  Imagine, for example, if you were being interviewed by a hiring committee.  Wouldn’t you much rather have people on that committee fully conscious of their decisions?  Or would you rather that they confabulated their way through choosing a candidate who just happened to be the last one interviewed?

The core message of confabulation is that although we often assume our decisions in life are based on conscious reasoning, the reality is that this is not always the case.  As the sock study illustrates, we are often making decisions or choices based on biases we aren’t even aware of.

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is confabulation, and how does the sock study illustrate how it operates in decision-making?

Challenge - Why We Buy:  Do some research on the psychology of consumer behavior.  What are some of the factors -- either conscious or unconscious -- that influence people to make purchases?  Write a brief report on what you learn that might help you and others make better decisions about how to spend money.

ALSO ON THIS DAY:

June 1, 1997:  Today is the anniversary of a commencement address that really was not a commencement address at all.  The story begins with Mary Schmick, a Pulitzer Price-winning columnist for the Chicago Tribune.  On this day she published a column that was so insightful that it took on a life of its own.  Somehow an urban legend evolved that Schmich’s words were a commencement address by author Kurt Vonnegut to the 1997 graduates of MIT.  The truth is, however, Vonnegut did not present a commencement address to MIT in 1997 nor did he have anything to do with the writing of Schmich’s column.  Read the column here:  “Advice, like youth, probably just wasted on the young.”

Sources:

1-Bortolotti, Lisa. “Confabulation:  Why Telling Ourselves Stories Makes Us Feel Ok.”  Aeon 13 Feb. 2018.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - May 31

How did Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichman rationalize his role in the atrocities of the Holocaust?

Subject: Obedience to Authority - Milgram’s Shock Machine

Event:  Trial of Adolf Eichman, 1962

-The Parable of the Two Wolves:

A grandfather is talking to his grandson:  “Inside each of us there is a battle going on between two wolves.  One wolf is evil - full of anger, greed, jealousy, and arrogance.  The second wolf is good - full of love, generosity, honesty, and humility.  

After listening intently to his grandfather’s words, the grandson asks, “Which wolf will win?”

The grandfather replied, “The one you feed.”  

                                            Image by Rain Carnation from Pixabay

On this day in 1962, NAZI SS officer and organizer of Hitler’s final solution Adolf Eichmann was executed after being found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Jerusalem. After fleeing Germany at the end of World War II, Eichmann lived under an assumed identity for fifteen years.  When he was discovered living in Argentina in 1960, Israeli officials apprehended him and transported him to Israel for trial.

One person who was especially captivated by Eichmann’s trial was a young Jewish psychologist named Stanley Milgram.  When he heard Eichmann’s defense, that he was just following orders, Milgram got an idea that would become one of the most famous and most controversial psychological studies in history.

The study that Milgram designed involved 40 male volunteers.  The subjects were told that the study was about the effects of punishment on memory, but what Milgram was really after was to find out how far subjects would go to obey authority.  

Subjects were told that they would be randomly assigned the role of either “teacher“ or “learner.“ In reality, however, every subject became a “teacher,“ and each “learner” was one of Milgram’s assistants.  The first step was for the “teacher” to observe while electrodes were attached to the wrist of each “learner.”  The “teacher” was then taken to a separate room and provided with a microphone and headphones for communication with the “learner.”  After studying a list of word pairs, the “learner” was quizzed by the “teacher.”  If a “learner” gave an incorrect answer, an electric shock was administered.  The “teacher” had a control board with 30 switches in a line.  The first switch began with the smallest shock, 15 volts, and each of the other switches increased the shock slightly.  The maximum shock was 450 volts.  “Teachers” were told that although the electric shocks were painful, they were not dangerous.

In reality the “learner” never received any shock, but the teacher was led to believe that an actual shock was administered:  Each time a switch was pressed a buzzer sounded and a red light illuminated. 

As the voltage of the shocks increased, the “teacher” would hear the “learner” request to end the test, or the “learner” would complain of a heart condition.  At 300-volts, the “teacher” would hear the “learner” banging on the wall, demanding to be released.

In the room with the “teacher” was the supervising experimenter, who wore a long white lab coat.  If the “teacher” ever expressed doubts about continuing the test, the experimenter would respond with one of the following prods:

1. Please continue.

2. The experiment requires you to continue.

3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.

4. You have no other choice but to continue.

The results of Milgram’s study revealed that 65 percent of the “teachers” continued the shocks to the highest level 450 volts while all “teachers’ continued to at least the 300-volt level.

Milgram concluded based on his study that ordinary people are likely to follow the orders of an authority figure, such as the experimenter in the long grey lab coat.  Furthermore, he concluded that this obedience to authority could extend even to the murder of innocent human beings as it had during the Holocaust.

Although many have turned to Milgram’s study to point out the fundamentally flawed nature of humans and their seeming willingness to follow orders blindly, historian Hunter Bregman sees things differently.  In his 2019 book Humandkind:  A Hopeful History, Bregman points out that questionnaires by Milgram’s subject revealed that only 56 percent actually believed that they were actually inflicting pain on the learner.  Furthermore, because the experiment was framed as a learning experiment, subjects felt that they were being helpful and were through their participation making a contribution to science.  This analysis serves to counter those who assert strongly that Milgram’s experiment proves that anyone will blindly follow the orders of a man in a grey lab coat (1).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What were the results of the Milgram experiment?

Challenge - No Good or Noble? : One of the oldest debates in philosophy is about the essential nature of human beings.  For example, philosopher Thomas Hobbs (1588-1679) argued that humans are essentially corrupt and deprived and that without the civilizing forces of government, society would devolve into chaos.  The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) disagreed.  He viewed the essential nature of humans as noble and peaceful.  Do some research on what people have said about the essential nature of humans.  Identify a quotation that you find interesting, write it down, and explain why you like it.

Sources:

1-Bregman, Rutger. Humankind: A Hopeful History.  New York:  Little, Brown and Company 2019.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - May 30

What food item’s taste sparked such a vivid memory that it resulted in a seven-volume memoir?

Subject: Memory - Proust’s Madeleine

Event:  First Memorial Day, 1868

Own only what you can always carry with you: know languages, know countries, know people. Let your memory be your travel bag. –Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

Today is the anniversary of the celebration of the first Memorial Day in 1868.  

After the Civil War ended in 1865, many communities in the North and the South began holding tributes to fallen soldiers.  These commemorations, which were originally called Decoration Day, were held in the spring when flowers were readily available for the decoration of graves.

On May 5, 1868, American General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, a Civil War veterans group, issued General Order Number 11, which said:

The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet church-yard in the land.

Decoration Day gradually evolved to be called Memorial Day. And after World War I, it became a day to honor not just fallen Civil War soldiers, but all war dead. Not until 1971 did Memorial Day become an official federal holiday.  In that year, the Uniform Monday Holiday Act established Memorial Day as the last Monday in May, which created a three-day weekend for federal workers (1).

While Memorial Day is a day to remember those who gave their lives in past wars, it can also be a day to remember the power we all have to revisit the past through the genre of memoir.  In memoir, we are given the ability to time travel and vicariously take part in the intimate experiences and thoughts of writers who have documented the significant moments of their lives.

There is no greater example of this than in Marcel Proust’s The Remembrance of Things Past, a seven-volume memoir published over a period of fourteen years (1913-1927). Proust’s flood of memories is launched in a single remarkable moment, as he is sitting drinking a cup of herbal tea with a madeleine, a small shell-shaped cake:  

And as soon as I had recognised the taste of the piece of madeleine soaked in her decoction of lime-blossom which my aunt used to give me (although I did not yet know and must long postpone the discovery of why this memory made me so happy) immediately the old grey house upon the street, where her room was, rose up like a stage set to attach itself to the little pavilion opening on to the garden which had been built out behind it for my parents (the isolated segment which until that moment had been all that I could see); and with the house the town, from morning to night and in all weathers, the square where I used to be sent before lunch, the streets along which I used to run errands, the country roads we took when it was fine.

Through his sense of taste, Proust’s memory is magically unlocked, and he is involuntarily and instantly transported in an instant to a vivid remembrance of his past. We often view memory as a conscious process, where we actively try to recall information, such as our Social Security Number.  Psychologists call this type of memory voluntary explicit memory.  A different type of memory is called the Proust phenomenon, or involuntary explicit memory.  This is the type of memory that came to Proust as he tasted the madeleine, instantly triggering powerful emotions and memories from his childhood (3).

Proust’s work is just one example of many brilliant memoirs that allow us to see, smell, taste, feel, and hear what others have experienced in their past.

Here are a few examples:

Angela’s Ashes by Frank McCourt

Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin

Boy by Roald Dahl

Confessions by Augustine

The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank

Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell

My Left Foot by Christy Brown

Stop Time by Frank Conroy

The Story of My Life  by Hellen Keller

Reading Lolita in Tehran:  A Memoir in Books by Azar Nafisi

This Boy’s Life: A Memoir by Tobias Wolff

On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft by Stephen King

Walden by Henry David Thoreau

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is the Proust phenomenon, and what does it have to do with a madeleine?

Challenge:  Proust Phenomenon:  What is a sight, smell, taste, feeling, or sound that triggers your involuntary explicit memory?  Explain what the specific trigger is and what specifically you remember.  What images and emotions flood your mind?

Sources:

1-History.com. “Memorial Day.” 24 May 2021.

2-Proust, Marcel. In Search of Lost Time Volume I: Swann’s Way. Trans. C.K. Scott Moncrieff and Terence Kilmartin. New York: The Modern Library, 2003.

3-”What is the "Proust phenomenon"?” brainstuff.org 31 Dec. 2018.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - May 29

How was classical rhetoric the spark that ignited the American Revolution?

Subject: Classical Argument - “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death”

Event:  Birthday of Patrick Henry, 1775

In making a speech one must study three points: first, the means of producing persuasion; second, the language; third the proper arrangement of the various parts of the speech. -Aristotle

Today is the birthday of Patrick Henry, who delivered one of the most memorable and most important speeches in American history on March 23, 1775.  The speech was delivered at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, to the 120 delegates of the Second Virginia Convention, which included George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  

The question at hand was whether or not to mobilize military forces against the British.  Some held out hope for peaceful reconciliation with Britain, arguing against the motion to use force.  Henry, a 38-year-old lawyer and politician, listened respectfully, then rose to give what is probably the best-known call to arms in the history of rhetoric. 

    
                                                        Image by Anne and Saturnino Miranda from Pixabay

 

In making his argument, Henry drew upon the classical arrangement of an argument, dating back to Aristotle and Cicero:

-The Introduction (Exordium) – The Reason for Relevance

-The Context (Narration) – The Context of the Controversy

-The Thesis (Partition) – The Architecture of the Argument

-The Evidence (Confirmation) – The Explanation of the Evidence

-The Counterclaims (Refutation) – The Consideration of Counterclaims

-The Conclusion (Peroration) – The Finish With a Flash

As we read Henry’s speech, we can break it into the six-part structure and examine how each part relates to the whole.

Exordium (Paragraphs 1-2):  Instead of beginning with a claim, the exordium seeks to win the attention and goodwill of the audience. Here Henry’s focus is on showing he is trustworthy and credible.  Notice how he shows respect to those who have spoken before him, while at the same time establishing his own forceful and confident voice:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony.

The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Narration (Paragraphs 3-8 ): In the Narration a speaker gives the context for the argument.  Notice how Henry provides background on the issue at hand. Also, notice how instead of making declarations, he more subtly guides his audience to join in his conclusions through the use of rhetorical questions:

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.

Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.

I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!

Partition (Paragraph 9):  In the Partition, a speaker presents the thesis, the core argument being made.  Notice how Henry clearly and forcefully states his claim, not just once but twice:

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

Confirmation and Refutation (Paragraphs 10-12):  In the Confirmation, a speaker supports the central argument with reasoning, proof, and evidence; in the Refutation, a speaker anticipates opposing claims and attempts to rebut them.  Notice how Henry builds his case for taking action and how he rebuts the case for inaction. Notice also how in addition to appealing to the logic of his audience, he uses powerful imagery to move his audience emotionally:

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.

Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable—and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

Peroration (Paragraphs 13-14):  In the Peroration, a speaker presents the grand finale by summarizing the case and by attempting to move the audience to action by appealing to emotion (1).  Henry has constructed and arranged his entire argument to culminate in a single dramatic crescendo:

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! (2)

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  How many different parts does the classical argument have, and what is the fifth part called? In Patrick Henry's famous speech, what was his purpose?

Challenge - Classical Arguments, Classical Choices:  What are some examples of the kinds of fundamental choices people must make in their lives, such as to marry or to stay single, to go to college or to get a job out of high school, to join the military or to remain a civilian?  Brainstorm a list of at least 10 possible choices a typical person might make.  These may be monumental, life-altering choices, or they may be simple choices that an individual must make on a daily basis.  Select one of the key choices that you feel strongly about and construct a classical argument using Henry’s speech as your model.  Arrange your speech to include each of the six elements of the classical argument, and like Henry, make sure to end with a climactic peroration. 

Sources:

1-Purdue Writing Lab. “Classical Argument  A (Very) Brief History of Rhetoric”

2-”Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death.”  Colonial Williamsburg 3 March 2020.