Folly’s argumentative style typically combines a number of surprising paradoxes with sly rhetorical deceptions and fallacies. Arguing, for example, that foolishness is paradoxically the foundation of all wisdom, Folly claims that:
One never attains to that renowned wisdom [...] except by taking Folly as guide. And first, it is beyond dispute that all emotions belong to folly. Indeed, we distinguish a wise man from a fool by this, that reason governs the one, and passion the other. Thus the Stoics take away from the wise man all perturbations of the soul, as so many diseases. Yet these passions not only discharge the office of mentor and guide to such as are pressing toward the gate of wisdom, but they also assist in every exercise of virtue as spurs and goads—persuaders, as it were—to well doing.
Wisdom, Folly argues, cannot be attained “except by taking Folly as a guide.” She then presents her fallacious but bold reasoning. If, as she argues, wise men are governed by “reason” and foolish men are in contrast governed by “passion,” then it can be concluded that “all emotions belong to folly.” Next, she argues that men are motivated to gain wisdom and accomplish good deeds as a result of their “passions.” Therefore, she concludes, there can be no wisdom without folly. Her reasoning is characteristically fallacious. In the course of her argument, she first equates “folly” with “emotion,” and then “emotion” with both “thought” and “action,” allowing her to make a surprising and paradoxical argument by using words in unfamiliar ways.
Befitting Folly’s status as the goddess of foolishness, her speech is full of fallacies. In the opening lines of the essay, for example, she misinterprets the responses of the audience members who have gathered before her:
I am she—the only she, I may say —whose divine influence makes gods and men rejoice, One great and sufficient proof of this is that the instant I stepped up to speak to this crowded assembly, all faces at once brightened with a fresh and unwonted cheerfulness, all of you suddenly unbent your brows, and with frolic and affectionate smiles you applauded [...] And thus what great orators elsewhere can hardly bring about in a long, carefully planned speech, I have done in a moment, with nothing but my looks.
Folly praises herself extravagantly, noting that she is the only goddess with the power to make “gods and men rejoice.” She attempts to offer “sufficient proof” of this lofty claim, noting that “the instant [she] stepped up to speak” to the audience, their “faces at once brightened with a fresh and unwonted cheerfulness.” While “great orators” must deliver “a long, carefully planned speech” to provoke a reaction in the audience, Folly herself is able to do so by her mere appearance. When the audience smiles upon seeing her, she assumes that she must be a great and powerful goddess. However, this is a fallacy. In fact, they smile because she is dressed as a fool, wearing the uniform of a jester including the ears of an “ass” or donkey. This is just one of many fallacious assumptions that Folly makes throughout the essay.
