{"id":4976,"date":"2021-10-20T16:42:14","date_gmt":"2021-10-20T14:42:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4976"},"modified":"2025-06-28T17:51:22","modified_gmt":"2025-06-28T15:51:22","slug":"fallacies-as-sins-of-the-tongue-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/fallacies-as-sins-of-the-tongue-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Fallacies as Sins of the Tongue"},"content":{"rendered":"

FALLACIES as \u201cSINS OF THE TONGUE<\/em>\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

From the perspectives of\u00a0 truth and rationality, fallacy theory<\/a> criticizes language and speech as vectors of error and deception, see evaluation<\/a>; norms<\/a>. Other cultures have established different foundations for critiquing language and speech. In their reconstruction of the history of the \u201csins of the tongue\u201d in the Middle Ages, Casagrande & Vecchio (1991) demonstrated the connection between speech<\/em> and sin<\/em>. The focus then was not on constructing a rational<\/em> discourse, but rather on achieving\u00a0sinless<\/em>, \u201cimpeccable,\u201d discourse, or holy discourse. The nature of wrongdoing has shifted: what was once considered sinful in the name of religion is now considered fallacious or sophistical in the name of rationality. Whether the concern is sin or fallacies, the salvation of the soul or the rational guidance of the mind, the matter always concerns the regulation of verbal behavior and the discipline of speech.<\/p>\n

Casagrande and Vecchio synthesized data from various medieval treatises into a list of fourteen sins. These sins, or religious fallacies were intended to criticize interactions within a religious context in which hierarchy and the valorization of authority played central roles, see politeness<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Establishing a connection between the theory of fallacies and the \u00ab\u00a0sins of the tongue\u00a0\u00bb does not disparage either party. On the contrary, this connection, is intended to demonstrate the deep anthropological roots of discourse criticism.<\/p>\n

1. Seven Interactional Sins<\/span><\/h1>\n

1.1 Lying<\/span><\/h2>\n

Telling the truth\u2013the whole truth and nothing but the truth\u2013is certainly a fundamental obligation for a non-fallacious debate. Lying is basically defined as telling someone something that is false when they have no independent access to the full truth. In theological systems, lying is a sin, as it is in the contemporary lay world, a fundamental violation of Grice’s cooperative<\/a> principle, see manipulation.<\/a><\/p>\n

Aggravated lying: Perjury and false testimony<\/span><\/h2>\n

In legal rhetoric, oaths and testimonies are two important instruments for establishing the truth, and are considered as \u201cnon-technical\u201d <\/a> evidence. Violating these oaths and testimonies corresponds to the sins of perjury, perjurium<\/em>, and false testimony, falsum testimonium<\/em>. These are serious interactional sins because they involve lying about the sacred foundations of social order.<\/p>\n

1.2 Against quarreling<\/span><\/h2>\n

Rivalry, conflict, fighting (contentio<\/em>), and discussion (disputatio<\/em>) are terms that can refer to the very activity of arguing. <\/em>Therefore,\u00a0 it can be said that arguing is potentially considered sinful at its very core. It is the sin of the intellectual monks, and was undoubtedly Abelard’s. The transition from the sinful to the fallacious is explicit in the Port-Royal Logic<\/em><\/a>, which condemns an excessive love of dispute, and a spirit of contradiction are condemned as sophisms of self-esteem (#6 and #7). These are fundamental features of the characters of \u201cthose who contradict\u201d (Arnauld and Nicole [1662], p. 272). Debate is subject to a moral imperative: contradiction must be genuine, and not \u201cmalicious and envious\u201d (ibid<\/em>.)-or, in the terms of legal pathology, querulous<\/em>. Such a debate can legitimately be rejected.<\/p>\n

In the following paragraphs, we distinguish two categories of sins of interactional positioning: sins committed \u201cagainst the other\u201d, or the person with whom one argues (\u00a7 2.2), and, on the other hand, the sins committed \u201cagainst oneself\u201d as a speaker (\u00a72.3). In both cases, In both cases, the issue is the illegitimate treatment of interaction partners, see politeness<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.2 Three Kinds of Sins Against the Partner<\/span><\/h2>\n

Undue negative treatment <\/strong>includes insulting remarks (contumelia<\/em>) and slander (detractio<\/em>). These two sins are personal attacks, and examples of the ad personam fallacy<\/em>. Derisio<\/em>, or contemptuous mockery, may be related to this fallacy, see ad hominem<\/em><\/a>; dismissal<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Negative treatment under the guise of the positivity<\/strong> is the mechanism of refutation by self-evidence is implemented through irony<\/a>, ironia<\/em>. Contemporary theories of irony usually only marginally address the intention to hurt the other person..<\/p>\n

Undue positive treatment includes <\/strong>flattery (adulatio<\/em>), and even simple praise (laudatio<\/em>). These two sins involve the same interactive mechanisms found in the fallacy of modesty<\/a>, ad verecundiam<\/em>, where the speaker unduly humiliates himself in front of his partner. Adulatio<\/em> and laudatio,<\/em> flattery and praise, encourage pride, and pride is a sin. Logic, religion, and courtesy converge on politeness<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.3 Two types of Sins Against Oneself<\/span><\/h2>\n

Undue positive treatment,that is<\/strong>, boasting, iactantia<\/em>. This ethotic sin stigmatizes the projection in the discussion of an overly positive self-image, in the discussion, see ethos<\/a>.\u00a0 Politeness theory also notes that \u00a0partners in ordinary interactions avoid immoderate self-praise..<\/p>\n

Undue negative treatment <\/strong>is the symmetrical sin of the sin of unduly positive treatment of one’s partner, see modesty<\/a>.<\/strong> Taciturnitas <\/em>is the sin of remaining silent when one should speak. It may be related to the ad verecundiam<\/em> fallacy in which \u201chuman respect\u201d inhibits criticism.<\/p>\n

4. Murmuring: A Sophism of Disobedience<\/span><\/h2>\n

A person who complains against authority commits the sin of murmuring (murmur<\/em>), see a fortiori<\/em><\/a>. A person who refuses to yield to the force of the best argument, having little to oppose to it except an hypothetical intimate conviction or sense of justice, can be guilty of the same kind of fallacy, see\u00a0 dissensus<\/a>; rules<\/a>. Disobedience is irrational, illegal and sinful.<\/p>\n

5. The Sin of Eloquence<\/span><\/h2>\n

Eloquence, seen as an abundance of words, amplification, repetition and magnification, is the source of all fallacies, see verbiage<\/a>. The same judgment should apply to idle talk<\/em> (vaniloquium<\/em>), and to chatter<\/em> (multiloquium<\/em>).<\/p>\n

6. Flaring Up into a Passion: Ad Passiones<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

Some of the remaining sins are difficult to relate to the problem of fallacies, perhaps because they are directly related to the sacred. Examples include the prohibition of obscene words<\/em> (turpiloquium<\/em>), blasphemy<\/em> (blasphemia<\/em>) and cursing (maledictum<\/em>). Nevertheless, these sins have emotional<\/a> significance, and certainly belong to the ad passiones<\/em> group. Blasphemy is anger against God, and cursing, is anger against others. Obscene words can be used to support many passions, including insult.<\/p>\n

In sum,<\/strong> the theory of sins of language is a critical theory of discourse that considers:
\n\u2014 The \u201cnon-technical\u201d problems of lying or bearing witness to the truth.
\n\u2014 The spirit of the discussion.
\n\u2014 The relative interactional positions of the participants.<\/p>\n

7. The \u201cRules of the Devil<\/em>\u201d<\/span><\/h1>\n

This list of fallacies-sins does not mention violations of logical rules, such as asserting the consequent (confusing necessary and sufficient conditions, see deduction<\/a>). One might think that this is because the logical domain, by its very nature escapes the religious norm. However, the Muslim tradition, however, the vocabulary of sin can be applied to paralogisms, which Al-Ghazali regards as \u201crules of the devil\u201d (Bal<\/em>., p. 171; Deg<\/em>.). A medieval exemplum<\/em> also sends the logician to hell, equating him with the sophist, see exemplum<\/em><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

FALLACIES as \u201cSINS OF THE TONGUE\u201d From the perspectives of\u00a0 truth and rationality, fallacy theory criticizes language and speech as vectors of error and deception, see evaluation; norms. Other cultures have established different foundations for critiquing language and speech. In their reconstruction of the history of the \u201csins of the tongue\u201d in the Middle Ages, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4976","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4976"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4976\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14542,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4976\/revisions\/14542"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}