Mary Astell and the Pretence of Truth in Logic

    What a wonderfully powerful woman Mary Astell was. She used her rhetoric to propel women toward education and a sense of self empowerment in a world that was often not conducive for these mentalities. She was a dutiful Christian, and used the respect she gained from the church and being a model Christian to further her ethos as an author. This was particularly important for women in this time, since perhaps the only place they could gain ethos was in this church-centered environment. In that sense, I was surprised I did not notice a greater connection to Christine Di Pizon, who used scripture to develop her ethos.

     However, in reading Astell I was struck by her intense commitment to logic, which reads almost like Ramus or could be reminiscent of some of Locke's theories. She is pointed, clear and critical with her approach, asking that rhetors are equally as cautious with their arguments as she. "I fear what we have got by a Pretense to Truth, won't be found to countervail the loss we shall sustain by the Discovery that it was no more. Which may induce us (if other Considerations will not) to be wary in receiving any Proposition our selves, and restrain us from being forward to impose our Sentiments on others" (Astell 852:IV - A Natural Logic) Astell's view on truth seems to be firmly planted in the realm of logic, understanding that the rhetor's goal is not to convince, but to be right-- treating truth as an 'end'. This tries into the way that she views her audience.

    The introduction for Astell's A Serious Proposal To The Ladies states "The rhetor should not seek to humiliate or triumph over her audience. Rather her goal should be to get them to see the truth, and Astell notes that progress to truth is often impeded for people who do not admit that they were wrong" (845). Though I agree and see strong examples (like the citation above) in Astell's text, I find a hiccup in placing this in the logic section. There is a fine line that defines Truth and it's difficult to tell who is persuading well, and who is right. Though Astell is advocating for Truth on the rhetors part, that doesn't mean that Truth will persist. We still find these (mostly moral) conflicts prominently in politics today.

    For example, it seems that in our modern society we tend to equate science and math-- or logic-- with Truth. It has become such a prevailing sentiment, that we have drawn a binary between Faith and Logic. It's interesting that Astell, though a woman of seemingly great Faith, has found such a persisting understanding of Logic.