MARCUS BRUTUS

 First, Brutus is a well-respected public figure and a genius military leader. His recognition is acknowledged many times throughout this play. The crowd at Caesar’s funeral regarded and praised Brutus in the highest of fashions. Brutus shows his military genius in his battles in Philippi. When Titinius receives news of Brutus’ battle one realizes that Brutus is a good military leader. Messala tells one that Octavius has been overthrown by noble Brutus’ power. Showing that noble Brutus is a well-respected public figure and a genius military leader.

The noble Brutus is also a kind master to his servants and a loving friend. He keeps his servant busy yet he still feels indebted to keep him well nourished. Brutus is the truest friend one could ever have. The only thing that surpasses his love for his friends is his love for Rome. He has complete trust for a friend and he is also trustworthy to a friend.

Last, Brutus’ gullibility is ironically one of his purest character traits yet his fatal flaw. It is very innocent of Brutus to trust everything that Cassius and the conspirators tell him. It would be good to trust them only if they were not deceptive. He ignores Cassius’ suggestion to kill Antony, believing Antony could bring no harm. He again chooses to ignore Cassius' advice and allows Antony to speak a funeral oration over Caesar's body. Brutus believed Antony would make the crowd more comfortable because Antony was one of Caesars dear friends. Allowing Antony to speak in the funeral may not have been such a bad idea, but allowing him to get in the last word had a catastrophic result. The reason why these two incidents happened is because Brutus failed to realize not everybody is noble, and pure such as Brutus himself.

During Julius Caesar funeral Brutus have given a speech in front of all Roman people. Below is the text of Brutus speech:

BRUTUS

Be patient till the last

Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my

cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me

for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that

you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and

awake your senses, that you may the better judge.

If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of

Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar

was no less than his. If then that friend demand

why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:–

Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved

Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and

die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live

all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;

as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was

valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I

slew him. There is tears for his love; joy for his

fortune; honour for his valour; and death for his

ambition. Who is here so base that would be a

bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended.

Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If

any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so

vile that will not love his country? If any, speak;

for him have I offended. I pause for a reply.

All

None, Brutus, none

BRUTUS

Then none have I offended. I have done no more to

Caesar than you shall do to Brutus. The question of

his death is enrolled in the Capitol; his glory not

extenuated, wherein he was worthy, nor his offences

enforced, for which he suffered death.

During his speech, he tries to appeal to the citizens’ reason and national pride. He explains his reasons and is straightforward. For example in his speech he says, “If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer- not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” Brutus's speech was logical. It contained facts about Caesar's ambition. He reminded the people that Caesar would have become a tyrant and would have enslaved everyone. Brutus clearly states to the citizen’s that he killed Caesar for the good of Rome. Brutus is indeed persuasive, but not as persuasive as Antony. Of course the gullible crowd is pleased to hear that Brutus loves Rome. But they cannot grasp the concept of being assassinated for ambition, as Brutus did not say in what way Caesar was ambitious or why he should be so severely punished.

SYLLOGISM

Syllogism is a way or arguing in which two statements are used to prove that a third statement is true. For example, All human must die; I am a human; Therefore, I must die. (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary). Theory of syllogism was developed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle.

Conditional syllogisms

Conditional syllogisms are better known as hypothetical syllogisms, because the arguments used here are not always valid. The basic of this syllogism type is: if A is true then B is true as well. An example will follow to elucidate the former.

Major premise:   If Johnny is eating sweets every day, he is placing

                           himself at risk for diabetes.

Minor premise:  Johnny does not eat sweats everyday

Conclusion:       Therefore Johnny is not placing himself at risk for

                           diabetes.

Categorical syllogisms

The third and most commonly used type of syllogisms are the categorical syllogisms. The basic for this syllogism type is: if A is a part of C, then B is a part of C (A and B are members of C). An example of this syllogism type will clarify the above:

Major premise: All men are mortal.

Minor premise: Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

RULES OF SYLLOGISM

Rule 1: There must be three terms and only three – the major term, theminor term, and the middle term. If there are only two terms therelationship between these two cannot be established. And if there were more than three terms this would violate the structure of the categorical syllogism.

Rule 2: Each term must occur twice in the syllogism: the major must occur in the conclusion and in one premise, the minor in the conclusion and in one premise; the middle in both premise but not in the conclusion. There must therefore be a total of three propositions in the syllogism.

Rule 3: The middle term must be distributed at least once. If the middleterm is particular in both premises it might stand for a different portion of its extension in each occurrence and thus be equivalent to two terms.

Rule 4: The major and minor terms may not be universal in the conclusion unless they are universal in the premises. If a term is distributed in the conclusion then it must be distributed first in the premise.

Rule 5: If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion must beaffirmative. The reason for this rule is that affirmative premises either unite the minor or major terms, or else do not bring them into relationship with each other at all.

Rule 6: If one premise is affirmative and the other negative, the conclusion must be negative.

Rule 7: If both premises are negative – and not equivalently affirmative – there can be no conclusion.

Rule 8: If both premises are particular there can be no conclusion.

#I have found some information about the rules of syllogism from this link. For more information, you can just click to the link.

 http://blogphilosophy.blogspot.com/2007/08/rules-of-syllogism.html