I'm so glad we are back to a mathematician. His writing mimics a mathematical proof. Although on paper, it looks redundant and borderline pointless, he is making sure he wraps up all the loose ends that would deem his argument flawed. Unlike Socrates (or Plato), he does not leave the reader to decide what the conclusion is--he tells you. He makes his claim, sticks to it, and burns people in the process. However, as a double major in math and English, I laughed a little too hard at his comment: "it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs."
I commented on Travis and Morgan's posts.
It is interesting to note the difference in writing styles from Plato to Aristotle.
ReplyDeleteI love the way he reasons as well. Having questions is sometimes (okay, most times) aggravating. I like that he wraps his claims up nicely.
I'm definitely with you on this. I so appreciate how he sticks to his argument, covers all his bases, and just makes a good, solid case for what he thinks.
ReplyDelete