Today I marched here in Albuquerque for science. I carried a sign which read, "Science is a method to dispel ignorance. Politics is a method to promote ignorance." I had been asked if politics necessarily behaved in this fashion, its present usages seemed to make it so. On the way home, I was thinking in terms of rhetoric and if successful rhetoric disabled ones reasoning and ethical values. Can argumentation be respectfully supportive of the individual?
Dear karl Burmeisster,
What a beautiful question! Notably, the rhetorical dimension plays a pivotal role in the act of argumentation because it offers the orators and speakers the advantage of a seemingly altruistic account of what they want to convey to their respective audiences. Generally speaking, the main goal of an argument is to boost adherence and rapport by making the audience agree with the legitimacy of the arguer's reasoning in regard to a specific course of action , an attitude as well as a belief and/or an action guiding commitment to certain beliefs. On this basis, as you have rightly observed, we can enlist the powerful mechanics of rheorics to dispel ignorance as in science or to promote ignorance as in politics. This is certainly a paradoxical situation. The rhetorical aspects of the act of arguing are used to advance the frontiers of science, while those used in politics often seek to take advantage of the public. I really believe that, in political debates, the element of appealing to the emotions of the targeted audience and their shared ethos enable the political speaker to reach his/her clandestine goals. Conversely, in the realm of science where emotions have no place, the scientist enlists the power of rhetorics to promote the universal body of knowledge. As such, like nuclear energy, rhetorics can be used both positively as in science and negatively, as in politics.
Best regards,
R. Biria
Dear Reza Biria,
Thank you for your observations. I have observed elsewhere that the effectiveness of rhetorical discourse is quite independent of the issues being argued. From a contribution of mine involving the rhetoric of shifts in tonality in music performance:
“. (from Kristiaan P. Aerke, Gods of Play, Baroque Festive Performances as Rhetorical Discourse)
"Rhetoric is entirely about the mechanics of persuasion. The object of that persuasion can be anything, regardless of ethical purpose. One might find it distressing that the same tools of persuasion serve quite well regardless of the morality of the underlying case being made.This issue comes to the fore when discussing nationalisms in general and Richard Wagner’s influence, particularly in the subjects of German nationalism and anti-Semitism. Stated simply, the morality or ethical content of the discourse plays no part (or at least appears to play no part) in the effectiveness of persuasion.
"One might wish otherwise and in fact some have even suggested the contrapositive position: that questionable morality is a part of the persuasive force: . It is just this nonsensical acquiescence to people behaving badly that one plans to expose as without usage within reasonable discourse."
and again
" (Richard Taruskin)
"Then the basic conflict is that rhetoric is about inducing certainty in an audience ... and it seems, certainty often breeds intolerance. That puts a bit of burden on the orator/performer, an ethical weight to be sure."
Modulation in Musical Rhetoric and " Harmonic Ambiguity ". Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275892748_Modulation_in_Musical_Rhetoric_and_Harmonic_Ambiguity [accessed Apr 23, 2017].
Technical Report Modulation in Musical Rhetoric and " Harmonic Ambiguity "
Dear professor,
Thank you very much for your insightful explanation. I learnt a lot from what you have broached up. Thank you.
Best regards,
R. Biria
Communication to bring about the truth of a situation is good!!! Standing up for what is fair and truthful is always good. Stating issues that make people reflect about 'what is the right, fair, decent, lawful, intelligent way is always good. Decisions without these is not the way toward a more humane, ethical, quality society.
It is a language which have offered the beauty ,sensible smile to the entire human beings of different races literature may be any form of science ,technology ,pure literature,religion,philosophy ,psychology ,medical contribution & such other areas the parting of knowledge of which all the time help the human beings for their thinking shape according to their taste of reading .
Critical or criticism is not opposition of the contribution may in the related areas . Contribution offer an help in reshaping in the thinking of the person if the criticism is acceptable to the viewer .
This is my personal opinion
Argumentation can be more respectful with a successful rhetoric.
I usually think that rhetoric can succeed without solid argumentation more than argumentation without successful rhetoric. Critical thought is very important, but if it is not properly communicated it tends to lose its target group. In an era of fugitive information in which an explosion of images, written messages and various connotations takes place, rhetoric has become indispensable. `The words are skin`, says Anzieu, and when their combination and transmission is persuasive and emotional, people can accept even the most profound violation of their principles. It is not just my point of view, history and even the sciences have already demonstrated it! How correct is the primacy of rhetoric, this is an endless discussion...