Campbell as an enlightened thinker While Campbell's literary life was dominated by
pedagogical and
pastoral concerns, it is apparent that his mind was tempered by the values of the Enlightenment. Campbell believed that the Enlightenment was the ally to a
moderate, rational, and practical Christianity, rather than a threat. His faith required that his religious evidences to be complete while his enlightened thinking required faith to give it purpose. Throughout Campbell's literary career, he focused on enlightened concerns such as rhetoric, taste, and genius—perhaps a result of his time in the Aberdeen Philosophical Society. His attempt to align rhetoric within the sphere of psychology resulted from
Francis Bacon's survey of the structure and purpose of knowledge. The Philosophy of Rhetoric illustrates the Baconian influence of
inductive methodology but also scientific investigation—two major concerns of the Enlightenment. As well, Campbell's appeal to natural evidences was a similarity in process shared by most of the great minds of the Enlightenment. This is seen throughout his writing, with particular emphasis on placing methodology before doctrine, critical inquiry before judgment, and his application of tolerance, moderation, and improvement.
Campbell and faculty psychology Campbell embraced the philosophical empiricism which
John Locke established in
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Following the example of Locke's humanistic sciences, Campbell set forth an analysis of rhetoric through the scope of mental faculties. He believed that a rhetoric grounded in
empiricism would become efficient because of the incorporation of the
cognitive processes. The human senses are the basis for the validity of belief; thus a
rhetorical theory based in
faculty psychology would establish that
rhetoric is capable of making a reader experience a concept with the same "vivacity" and automaticity as that of the senses. Campbell, like most theorists of the Enlightenment, believed in a
universal human nature: the "general principles [of taste] are the same in every people". He gives the example of
tropes and
figuration which "are so far from being the inventions of art, that, on the contrary, they result from the original and essential principles of the human mind". This facet of human nature has remained constant throughout history so it must be universal trait. Based on premises similar to this, Campbell claimed that human beings act according to clear and obvious motives and rhetoric should be, in turn, directed towards similar operations of the mind. To persuade effectively, Campbell believed that the orator should adapt his or her discourse to the needs of the audience, for as he states: "whatever be the ultimate intention of the orator, to inform, to convince, to please, to move, or to persuade, still he must speak so as to be understood, or he speaks to no purpose". He classifies the needs of the audience into four different categories: :*Understanding: Elucidating a subject by explanation and proof :*Imagination: Exciting admiration by style, resemblance, detail, and sublimity :*Passions: Involving, motivating, associating images :*Will: Persuading to action by combining argumentation with vivacity The purpose of discourse is derived from the powers of the mind to which they appeal (understanding, imagination, passions, will), rather than the classical three, which are based on the public purpose of oration. The classical categories (see
Cicero and
Quintilian) are the demonstrative, to praise or blame; the deliberative, to advise or dissuade; and the forensic, to accuse or defend. In considering each of these, Campbell believes that not only understanding and memory of the audience must be taken into account, but the orator must as well provide particular attention at stimulating their passions. To incorporate this was as an obvious concern for Campbell, who believed that effective
preaching must be measured by its effects on the audience.
Campbell and evidence To move an audience, Campbell believed that a rhetorician must appreciate the relationship between evidence and human nature. Campbell divided evidence into two major types: intuitive and deductive. Intuitive evidence is convincing by its mere appearance. Its effect on the power of judgment is "natural, original, and unaccountable", which suggests that no other additional evidences can make it more compelling or effective. Campbell subdivides intuitive evidence into three sources:
abstraction,
consciousness, and
common sense. These are responsible for our understanding of
metaphysical, physical, and moral truths. Deductive evidence, unlike intuitive, is not immediately perceived. It must be demonstrated either logically or factually since it is not derived by premises but with comparing ideas. Deductive evidence originates from one of two sources: demonstrative or moral. Demonstrative concerns itself with abstract and invariable relations of ideas; moral, on the other hand, is concerned only with matters of fact. Campbell had the idea of both moral and scientific reasoning. In his book,
The Philosophy of Rhetoric, the philosopher states four types of evidence that goes into reasoning. The first one is that reasoning comes from experience and how past experiences shape our sense of reason for present, and future reasoning. The second type of evidence is analogy, to analyze a situation we are able to get more of an understanding and view what needs to be done in the future to better an outcome. The third type of evidence is testimony. Testimony has to deal with written or oral communication. The very last is calculations of chances. Knowing that chance is not predictable a person can assume and use reason when it comes to other certain types of happenings.
Campbell's critique of Aristotle Campbell believed that
Aristotle's
syllogistic method is faulty for four reasons: :# It is offered as a method of discovery when at best it is a way to present ideas; :# Even in mathematics or as a method of presentation, it is not efficient or effective since its formal rules do not guarantee validity; :# Even if it is only used as a method of reasoning, a syllogism is not very useful because it leads one to discover what is obvious from the first premise, because the syllogism will most likely assume the point in question; :# Even if they will sometimes guard the mind against an oversight, syllogisms often also mislead and are hardly the most effective check against carelessness.
Campbell and Hume In
David Hume's essay,
Of Miracles, he assesses the credibility of
testimony for miracles, and claims that our acceptance of it is based on experience; thus when testimony goes against the evidence of experience, it is a likely reason to reject the testimony. In response, Campbell published
A Dissertation on Miracles to refute Hume's essay. He believed that Hume misrepresented the importance of testimony in attaining knowledge. Our faith in the representation of others is an original component in
human nature. As proof, Campbell provides the example of children who readily accept the testimony of others. It is not until they get older and become sceptical that testimony is rejected; proof that our trust in witnesses precedes that of experience. For Campbell, the belief of testimony is part of
human nature, since it is an unlearned and automatic response. Testimony is thus closer to evidence from
consciousness than that from experience. Campbell argues that the most important factor in determining the authenticity of testimony is the number of witnesses. Numerous witnesses and no evidence of collusion will supersede all other factors, since the likelihood of testimony outweighs that of Hume's formula for determining the balance of probabilities. According to Campbell, Hume is wrong to claim that testimony is a weakened type of evidence; it is capable of providing absolute certainty even with the most miraculous event. ==Works==