“sober certainty of waking bliss”

I took Philosophy 151B last semester, which is called Introductory Logic. I had Professor Emswiler, who is a serious trip. I loved her. It is a great great class and I learned a lot; I really recommend taking it. When reading Satan’s argument to Eve and talking about it in class on Wednesday I was reminded of a section of Logic where were learned about fallacies. A fallacy is part of an argument that renders the entire argument invalid because it is flawed in some way.Dr. Campbell kept mentioning the way Satan had created a perfect argument because he reasoned in circles, therefore tricking Eve. Well, if Eve had taken Phil 151 she would have known not to fall for such faulty logic. I’m pretty sure that Satan has used several fallacies in his argument (I’m sure that someone, somewhere has already analyzed it logically, and I am in no way an expert, but it’s interesting to think about).

First I would argue that Satan’s entire argument is a fallacy of weak induction because it is an appeal to an unqualified authority. This is an argument from an authority in which the authority lacks credibility. A “real life” example of this fallacy we had in class was: “After examining the new mole on my neck, my hairstylist told me that it will get better by drinking herbal tea. Since she is a good stylist, my neck should get better if I drink herbal tea.” Since this is an example, it is fairly obvious to see the fallacy of the argument and why it’s not valid. In PL, Eve’s highest authority is God; she knows this. Satan asserts himself (as a talking serpent, no less) as an authority on something he has no way of knowing, and Eve falls for this appeal to an unqualified authority. “Look on me,/Me who have touched and tasted, yet both live” (IX, 687-688). This animal has no authority regarding the tree and the fruit, yet the argument appeals to Eve anyway. Eve should have known not to trust a lowly creature before trusting God, Adam and herself. Fallacies are really tricky, though. What also makes this entire scene interesting is that Satan is being hypocritical (he’s not really a serpent, he has never tasted the fruit, etc.) and Milton stated earlier (in Book III) that only God could discern hypocrisy.

I would also argue that Satan commits several fallacies of presumption too. He definitely utilizes complex questions, which is when multiple questions are hidden in a single question. The example from class was: “Does the president really believe that the American public is so naive that they will endorse large cuts in our Medicare benefits for seniors? He’d respond ‘No’, of course, so there should be no cuts.” I’m pretty sure every question Satan asks in loaded in this manner. “Look on me,/Me who have touched and tasted, yet both live,/And life more perfect have attained than fate/Meant me, by venturing higher than my lot./Shall that be shut to man, which to the beast/is open?” (IX, 687-692). Or perhaps: “And wherein lies/The offense, that man should this attain to know?/What can your knowledge hurt him, or this tree/Impart against his will is all be his?” (IX, 725-728). I’m not sure if those are perfect examples, but I think you can get the idea.

A second fallacy of presumption (this is the going around in circles one!!) is called begging the question, and I’m pretty sure it’s what Satan does here: “Of evil, if what is evil/ Be real, what not known, since easier shunned?/God therefore cannot hurt ye, and be just; / Not just, not God; not feared then, nor obeyed: / Your fear of death itself removes the fear” (IX, 700-703). When using this fallacy, the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate by leaving out a key premise, by restating the conclusion as a premise pr by reasoning in a circle. The example from class was: “Everyone believes what Senator Henry says because he is the most credible member of the Senate. He is the most credible member of the Senate because everyone believes what he says.” I think Satan uses this fallacy much more complexly than the example; and I think it’s funny the definition is basically what we were saying in class about it!

Finally, I noticed one last fallacy in Satan’s argument, one towards the beginning, a fallacy of relevance. The red herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the listener by changing the subject to a different but subtly related topic. The class example was: “The Civil Rights Initiative forbids discrimination on the grounds of race or sex. Bathrooms are segregated by sex. Ladies, do we want to use the same bathrooms as me? Obviously, we should not adopt this initiative.” Satan is so clever and subtle with this: “Queen of this universe, do not believe/Those rigid threats of death; ye shall not die:/How should ye? By the fruit? It gives you life/To knowledge. By the threatener? Look on me,/Me who have touched and tasted, yet both live” (IX, 684-688). While reading this all I could think was, Um GOD?! Does he not have something to do with this?! Isn’t he the one that has to do with your death is you eat this?! God and God’s law is the most relevant part of the argument, yet Satan diverts the attention away from him. And Eve falls.

Fallacies are really tricky to spot a lot of the time and many people win arguments based on faulty logic (i.e. Satan). So Eve can’t really be BLAMED but she is not totally innocent victim. All the verbal runaround made her lose her head. If, as Dr. C likes to talk about, she had actually caught on to Satan’s logical flaws, just imagine how much she would have grown intellectual and spiritually… Anyway, my totally amateur take on the whole thing.