rescuing rhetoric

[Paladin]

Once a respected method of persuasion, the term "rhetoric" is now almost always used in a pejorative manner. Is there a way to resurrect this venerable tool of sophistry or is it doomed to a lower state due to misuse by the unenlightened and uneducated?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Once a respected method of persuasion, the term "rhetoric" is now almost always used in a pejorative manner. Is there a way to resurrect this venerable tool of sophistry or is it doomed to a lower state due to misuse by the unenlightened and uneducated?

In my opinion, the real goal of a good education ought to be to develop one's fundamental academic skills rather than simply acquire knowledge. Those skills are: critical thinking, research, writing and written and oral persuasion (in that order). If you build a foundation in those things first, even if you don't memorize the details, you'll not only know how to find out the details but you may also be able to add something to them. If more people developed those skills, there'd be less opportunity for the use (or misuse) of "rhetoric." Its negative connotations are a natural product of the opportunity we've given to some to abuse it.

[flowperson]

This is an interesting proposition,

Yes, since the classical periods of Roman and Greek civilizations at least, people have used written and spoken thoughts to communicate and persuade others regarding their intents in life. But it is my belief that all of this began to go out the window for the masses of the population in the 60's when the projected image began to take precedence in persuading and communicating messages among us. Remember how the images of death from Vietnam really gave the imeptus to stop the killing ? Recall how the currrent administration forbade the networks from showing such footage regarding the goings on in Iraq ?

There are still pockets of importance where speaking and writing skills developed through rigorous educational practices take precedence, such as the legal, academic, religious, and political environments. And that will continue as is for some time to come, IMO. However, even televised debates from the House and Senate prominently feature robust visual aids these days. But it is simply more efficient and cost effective to use images projected through the mass media to convince the public at large that whatever is being communicated to them is "true and worthwhile" information.

Now with the widespread ability to digitally manipulate such imagery, then belief in what is seen may be significantly skewed. It just could be that the majority of the public is entering a "maya" visual system of communication and belief, while those who are somehow aware of such things will restrict and limit their belief to sources that are more trustworthy in their nature such as NPR, PBS and Indy media. But then I also have my suspicions regarding the federally mandated directive that all television broadcast signals be converted to a digital format in the not too distant future. Call me paranoid if you will, but I've seen to much manipulation of reality to believe in much of what I see anymore.

I myself listen to shortwave news broadcasts from other nations to gain objective views concerning world events free from the prejudices naturally communicated through American media. Ask yourself if you are more likely to believe what goes on when Bill Moyers interviews an author on "Faith and Reason" or more likely to believe anything that is broadcast on Fox News ?

flow....

[rednaliknaj]

The pejorative use of 'rhetoric' is in itself a piece of low grade rhetoric.

It is just one of a myriad ways of dodging the subject. Of flinging mud at your opponent, instead of answering his points.

Rhetoric is power and power is a frightful thing. Now when you brand someone for being 'rhetorical', you are suggesting that he has a pitiful measure of that power, and so he has. Good rhetoric is transparent. The competent rhetor comes on like a regular guy and would never incur that nor any other kind of abuse. Good rhetoric is invisible.

Rhetoric is not in need of being rescued. Such efforts should be directed towards the improvement of language teaching methods.


Tataa!

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Once a respected method of persuasion, the term "rhetoric" is now almost always used in a pejorative manner. Is there a way to resurrect this venerable tool of sophistry or is it doomed to a lower state due to misuse by the unenlightened and uneducated?

In ethical or aesthetic discussions the pertinent infromation takes primacy for me. If I'm well informed, the facts will change the other person's mind. If I'm not, the facts will usually help change mine. If all the pertinent facts are exhausted and there is no agreement, I usually don't care enough what the other person thinks. I'm wary of emotional talk, and eloquent orators. Just me.

What is this venerable nature of the art of rhetoric that my uneducated mind has overlooked, Mark?

[Paladin]

You might begin with a quick overview of what rhetoric is according to Aristotle: http://www.rpi.edu/dept/llc/webclass...oject1/group4/

BTW, great to see you Jaiket

[Jaiket]

Thanks for the link.

[samabudhi]

The competent rhetor comes on like a regular guy and would never incur that nor any other kind of abuse.

Maybe less so, but to say it won't happen is a bit much.

[Paladin]

I submit that the biggest abuse of rhetoric is the flagrant disregard for a properly constructed argument. Many statements are rife with logical fallacies and show a lack of knowledge as to what constitutes a sound, logical argument and what merely appeals to the audience as "sounding right".
Shouldn't good rhetoric simply appeal to a persons good sense and perhaps persuade them to entertain a thought they previously held at arms length? After all even old Aristotle said that the measure of an educated mind was to be able to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I submit that the biggest abuse of rhetoric is the flagrant disregard for a properly constructed argument. Many statements are rife with logical fallacies and show a lack of knowledge as to what constitutes a sound, logical argument and what merely appeals to the audience as "sounding right".
Shouldn't good rhetoric simply appeal to a persons good sense and perhaps persuade them to entertain a thought they previously held at arms length? After all even old Aristotle said that the measure of an educated mind was to be able to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it.

As contrasted to having a battle of words stuffed with fluff in a proverbial "pillow fight?"

[Paladin]

I'm not sure I follow you Seattlegal

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I'm not sure I follow you Seattlegal

I was employing rhetoric. {I just couldn't resist.}

Isn't an unconstructed argument that contains little or no substance just "fluff?" Isn't having such an argument consisting of just "fluff"--rhetoric for the sake of rhetoric--like "having a proverbial pillow fight? (pillows also being stuffed with "fluff?") In a pillow fight, you're not trying to persuade the other person of anything, except perhaps who is better at pillow fighting, and whose pillow is stuffed with the finer "fluff."

Rhetoric can be employed to flesh out the logical construction, or the "bones" of an argument, and bring it to life, but without the logical support, even the most flowery language is just fluff.

[Paladin]

Absolutely Seattlegal, but rhetoric was never supposed to be just fluff, it's just that it has become a way around a good argument and picked up a bad rep in the process. Check out the link in my post above to see some examples of good rhetoric. I have a friend who is an assistant professor of rhetoric and his blog is another source of good information. The name of his blog is called the Woodmoor Zendo. It is especially helpful if you enjoy Buddhism