Aristotle — on how one should use enthymemes

The article criticizes the widespread view of the enthymeme as an abbreviated syllogism, as well as the method of testing its correctness by restoring it to a full categorical syllogism. It is argued that such an approach not only distorts the Aristotelian understanding of the enthymeme as an instrument of persuasion, but also hinders the development of the logic's applied aspect, and makes it difficult to respond adequately to the public demand for its practical application. The main attention is paid to the analysis of the classification of enthymemes in Aristotle's Rhetoric. On the basis of this analysis it is concluded that of the four types of enthymemes only one can be restored to a full syllogism, while the rest should be evaluated by the method of searching for counterexamples. In addition, the article makes a comparative study of the old (Platonova) and new (Tsybenko) Russian translations of the Rhetoric. On its basis, a number of clarifications to the treatment of enthymemes and ways of working with them in Aristotle are proposed, which confirms the invalidity of the concept of enthymeme as an abbreviated syllogism.