steve,
i enjoyed your post and am glad that the feeling that this has been a
positive experience is mutual.
i have a couple of points that i'd like to make about my view of what
the modern meaning of dialectic. i included the portion of my post that
you included in yours for those of you who are wondering what the hell
i'm writing about.
>
> 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.
> _____________________________________
>
Steve Marquis wrote:
> 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.
i should have mentioned that i consider this exchange as a "dialectic
through rhetoric" because it is "dialogic," meaning it is a based on a
dialogue, a trading of ideas, experiences, and differences. one of
plato's critiques of writing was that there was no way for the reader to
engage in dialectic with the writer; in other words, the reader couldn't
ask questions to clarify, expand, challenge, or (if he's like the
platonic socrates :) ) discredit the writer's position. rhetoric itself
neither creates dialogue nor does it prevent it; the medium of
communication is the sole determiner.
but what we're doing is more than a point/countepoint (though there is
an element to that). it is a mediation and an expansion of our
experience.
if this is your view of dialectic, too, then i agree with you.
> 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.
me too.
> 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.
without going into too much detail (as i usually do), i would speculate
that the reason you see rhetoric as "monologic" is that its origins are
in oratory (oral culture; before the invention of writing). a speech is
a single person's presentation or "performance."
you may also view rhetoric as also monolgic because it is something that
is read without an active participation of the reader, like a speech on
paper (which i disagree with; such a theory makes a lot of assumptions
on the audience, particularly that the audience is passive when he/she
reads). again, rhetoric is an event that employs certain tools to
convince; to be fair, dialectic, i think, should be view the same way.
when you write above about dialogue (as i have too), we seem to be
talking about debate, a word you even used to open your post. how is
that different than "dueling speeches"?
rhetoric isn't dependent on the number of participants or even the
medium it's transmitted through (ie, speech, writing, print, or
electronic media such as email). it's the skill used to convince an
audience of your message. in the old sense of dialectic, the questioner
can use all the rhetoric in the world; the responder cannot. that's why
i find the platonic dialogues often lop-sided.
additionally, rhetoric is not a skill used to determine absolute truths,
whereas with "old sense" dialectic that was exactly its purpose (at
least for plato). rhetoric is contextual and the "messages" it
communicates (or should be communicating) are contextual as well.
different audiences will respond to different arguments based on who
they are, what they believe, what their experiences are.
i should add here that when i teach argument to my students is not
necessarily to convince the of the message, but to convince them to
consider it. it's really hard to change peoples' minds these days w/o
some sort of brain-washing or physical coercion (which, unfortunately,
has been mistaken with rhetoric)
> 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.
yes, but it is enjoyable because there is respect and patience. you've
really challenged my opinions on both dialectic and rhetoric. thank
you.
> 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'm intrigued by your position on stoicism. i would like to hear more
when you have time.
i look forward to your return.
jamie
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