Platt,
You have a conception rhetoric like a 2000 year old Greek and your logic
leaves much to be desired as well. I ask WHY can't rules have exceptions
and you keep parroting "self-reference" or "self contradiction"....
PLATT:
The rule is the Fallacy of Self-Reference which has the logical form of
contradiction, A and not A. Take your rule, "Rules can have exceptions."
But your rule can't have an exception because a rule cannot be an
exception to itself. If you argue that your rule can be an exception to
itself, then it's not a rule. Either way, your rule is self-defeating and
illogical.
This is silly... you write "a rule cannot be an exception to itself" as if
it's carved on a mountain somewhere and call yourself logical. However, you
don't support the assertion with any logic at all (If a rule excepts itself
it's not a rule??? That's not logic, it totally begs the question--- it's
exactly what we're arguing over.)
And yes, I know "A and not A" is the syllogistic form of a contradiction,
but the question is why you think a self-exempting rule must be expressed in
that logical form--- why not... A except B (where B = the expression of A).
Try this quick hypothetical dialogue....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Phaedrus and Socrates meet on the road and sit to debate, somewhere within
their dialogue the following exchange occurs....
Phaedrus: There is an exception to every rule.
Socrates: Oh Phaedrus, you are quite the sophist and even a foolish old man
like me can see that your statement is an absurdity. For your statement
itself is a rule and if its premise is true it violates itself.
Phaedrus: No Socrates, the rule is the exeption to itself and therefore its
premise is totally consistent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Now Platt, is Phaedrus's argument illogical....?
PLATT:
As for the difference between a logical argument and a rhetorical one,
in a rhetorical argument you can be illogical (as you've illustrated), but
in a logical argument you can't.
RICK:
Rhetorical argument CANNOT be illogical, Illogical rhetoical arguments are
simply bad arguments... And even the logical form (the syllogism) can
produce illogical arguments, after all logic is only as strong as the
premises Garbage in, Garbage out)... And the only thing I've illustrated is
that you have failed to provide a basis (logical or rhetorical) for your
premise that rules cannot exempt themselves. I think you need to brush up
on your ZMM (specifically Pirsig's reexamination of rhetoric and the
sophists)..... Where logic relates to truth (the true), rhetoric relates to
justifiable opinion (the good/best).... Where logical arguments are judged
as true or false, rhetorical arguments are judged as strong or weak....
Rhetoric is the tool for arguing over matters which admit of no truth, first
principles, and matters of VALUE (you think it's a coincidence that Pirsig
fancies himself a sophist?). If you'd like me to elaborate more on any of
the points don't hesitate to ask.
PLATT:
Rhetoric (the use of language
persuasively) when grounded in logic (principles of reasoning)
captures the best of both worlds. In this regard, perhaps we can agree
Pirsig is a master.
RICK:
Agreed. Although your use of terms is strange.... Rhetoric and Logic are
both different forms of Reasoning and so all rhetoric is "grounded in the
principles of reasoning." Check out Aristotle's Organnon for more on the
nature of reason (2 kinds: Analytical Reasoning and Dialectical/Rhetorical
Reasoning).
Rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:04 BST