Geoff's Miscellany

Rhetoric

On Rhetorical Aims and Defense Against the Dark Arts

March 3, 2016

There are two modes of public discourse that deal with syllogisms:

  1. Rhetoric – the art of persuasion
  2. Dialectic – the art of discovering/explaining what must or may be true or false based upon facts and reasoning.
The thing about these that is important to remember is that dialectic is not always effective when used as rhetoric. Many people have no patience for examining things as they are. But rhetoric can use the skills of dialectic to appeal to those who enjoy feeling smart but do not, perhaps, understand how logic works or who do not understand the facts of the case. One may look at the relationship between  rhetoric and dialectic thus:
  1. Pure dialectic – Exact discourse using facts and logic (think math lectures)
  2. Truthful Rhetoric – Rhetoric that appeals to emotions while being backed up by careful research or absolute truth.
  3. False-Dialectic – Attempted dialectic that the wielder does not realize is actually rhetoric.
  4. Sophistry – the intentional use of emotional rhetoric to convince people to act/feel/believe without reference to the truth.
There are three modes of persuasive rhetoric:
  1. Deliberative Meant to persuade people to act.
  1. Judicial Meant to convict or defend people based on their deeds.
  1. Epideictic Used to raise support for and adherence to group values. In other words, it is meant to inspire or please the hearers. A secondary use is to portray a person, group, or idea as honorable or shameful.
You’ll find it useful to be able to distinguish between each type of rhetoric (note: many authors cannot even do this).

For instance, Christians often use epideictic rhetoric that is designed to inspire deeper commitment to Christ amongst believers to share the gospel with outsiders.

On Rhetorical Risk

November 7, 2015

Two of the most powerful rhetorical tools are exclusion and shaming.

These tools are related, but distinct:

  • Shame- "People like this are terrible, just terrible. Nobody should be like this." Stated as a fact, this may or may not be true. But stated as rhetoric, the idea is to get those who agree to distance themselves from those who disagree and to get those who disagree to feel bad enough to change their minds.
  • Exclusion- "As a civilization we're past ideas like this. For instance we have science, but these people still believe in a creator god." This is designed not merely to get the audience to distance themselves from the bad people, but to make them feel like outsiders to the party of fun and brightness that they are missing.
Perhaps the riskiest rhetorical moves being made right now on either side of the political divide are being made by the people mocking supporters of various republican and democratic candidates. The potential pay-off is, I suppose, discouraging them from voting or shaming them into changing. The downside is that calling somebody stupid, small-minded, or imbecilic for supporting your opponent will not endear them to you on the average.

Interesting thoughts about arguments

November 22, 2013

A fiction author/videogame programmer who goes by Vox Day recently posted a blog wherein he notes the problems with trying to explain oneself in our current culture. First he quoted this guy, saying

Like the mistaking of kindness for weakness that plagues today’s nice guys, there is some element of the human mind that frames lengthy and incessant counter-argument as a position of weakness and insecurity. He who masters pithy, concise (and indirect and ambiguous, I might add) communication commands a stronger image of rhetorical confidence and state control than the bloviating firebrand whose logical appeals may indeed be without equal.