Jamie wrote:
___________________________________
in a modern sense, this post is a dialectic-- an exchange of ideas on a
certain topic. but in this modern sense, rhetoric plays a large part of
how this information is presented. we care about what the other has to
say. a y/n system would do little to expand our understanding of the
other's pov or experience.
at the same time, as practitioner of rhetoric in this dialectic, we are not
trying to "win" the other person over to our point of view (especially if
we think our point of view is superior because it is our point of view).
we're creating logical, coherent arguments that support
our experience with the topic.
_____________________________________
Thanks for your friendly debate. I am encouraged. You say we are using
rhetoric, and I say we are engaging in dialectic. And, you seem to agree,
in the modern sense of the term. A flexible individual, it would seem,
would have many tools in his or her toolbox, and use the tool that best
fits the situation.
Yes, my image of what persuasion is includes winning as the objective, not
furthering one's understanding. I can see you have a different concept in
mind. One of the key lessons I learned in critical thinking was to build
the best argument possible (identifying the structure, checking for
explicit / implicit premises, does the conclusion follow, fallacies, etc,
etc). This is all before the validity of a single premise is looked at,
and without any consideration of the subject of the argument. If this is
what you mean by convincing, then I agree.
Part of my concept of rhetoric is that its monologue. Since we are in a
dialogue, and yet you claim we are using rhetoric technique, maybe you can
elaborate on that.
I am fortunate to have a good friend with whom I can engage with in this
ort of discussion. Almost every time we have a disagreement, with patience
and feedback we find it is either a misunderstanding, or we have different
definitions for the same word. Yes, it is tedious work.
Our usual resolution of the same word with different meanings issue is that
one of us volunteers to use another word for their concept and we carry on.
The learning value of the discussion is far more important than the
attachment to any word.
If you read my intro you know I have a strong interest in Stoicism. I
tired to point out that Classical Greek rationality may not be quite as
static as some would have us believe. Stoic apatheia, for example is
developing detachment to transitory things, those things outside our
control. The Skeptics also practiced this in a different way, focusing on
detachment from ideas. I can elaborate further if someone wishes. For now
I'll just say detachment is not passivity, it is choosing to recognize the
dynamic nature of reality and how best to function in it.
I apology for not being able to respond more to your lengthly posts right
now. I'll be back Monday for further learning (and the dialectic!!).
Steve
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:08 BST