3

How ought one best understand an 'apophasis'? Is it the act of mentioning something by not mentioning it, or mentioning it by explicitly saying you won't mention it? Or does it encompass both meanings?

I'm aware that in rhetoric one can, by way of apophasis, employ a sneaky ad hominem. So, for example, a person could say of his opponent:

"I won't even begin to address my opponent's gambling problem".

They've effectively addressed their opponent's gambling problem by means of saying they won't address it.

However does this word enable one to address something by not addressing it?

Let's say in a politician's ten minute media campaign they address many things, but leave out climate change. Could this be considered an apophasis on their part, effectively addressing climate change (or their disregard for it) by not addressing it?

I'm very interested in this... any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks.

Improve this question
7
  • Which definitions have you considered? The ones I looked at make it pretty clear that one must deny that the subject will be mentioned.
    – Jim
    Commented Jun 14, 2015 at 23:55
  • I'm aware that the most basic definition seems clear in saying that one must deny that the subject will be mentioned. However I'm wondering how elastic this definition is... and whether it can accommodate my other proposal 'mentioning something without mentioning it", or if it is only mentioning it by means of saying it will not be mentioned. This might be splitting hairs though....
    – John Samps
    Commented Jun 15, 2015 at 2:37
  • "However I'm wondering how elastic this definition is" it is not in the slightest elastic. zero, none. forget your idea of extending some new meaning. "my other proposal..." it has utterly no connection to "mentioning without mentioning" ("hinting" at something). your thought is completely wrong, set it aside! apophasis is simply when you say the words, basically: "I won't talk about X.". if you're using extremely obscure, really basically silly! term, no need to add further complication!
    – Fattie
    Commented Jun 15, 2015 at 3:59
  • 2
    "Let's say in a politician's ten minute media campaign they address many things, but leave out climate change. Could this be considered an apophasis on their part" no, it has nothing to do with it, no connection to apophasis. that would be some other, ingenious, rhetorical device.
    – Fattie
    Commented Jun 15, 2015 at 4:00
  • But @JoeBlow tell me how you really feel? I won't even address your lack of regard for capitalization ....
    – John Samps
    Commented Jun 16, 2015 at 3:23

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6

"I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience," Ronald Reagan to Walter Mondale, 1984.

Improve this answer
0

Let's say in a politician's ten minute media campaign they address many things, but leave out climate change. Could this be considered an apophasis on their part,

No. That is simply an omission. The essence of apophasis is that you do refer to a subject but only by way of referring to the fact that you will not mention it.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .