I've always had issue with the use of the word "persuade" in definitions of rhetoric. Rhetoric is a means of communication - to discuss, not to persuade. A passage from the Introduction we read for today reads, "Discourse should be used as a means to uncover absolute truth, not merely to induce belief in probable truth or received wisdom" (28). It then differentiates the two as "true and false rhetoric." True rhetoric becomes the discussion: finding truth through rhetoric instead of instilling truth using rhetoric. I like the metaphor in the Introduction on page 29, "This process might be likened to clearing away the conventional underbrush so that the truth can be seen."
In Phaedrus, there is a passage from Socrates (page 140, left column) "I am not yet able, as the Delphic inscription has it, to know myself; so it seems to me ridiculous, when I do not yet know that, to investigate irrelevant things." The "irrelevant thing" specifically referred to is story and truthfulness in story.
Connecting these two passages resulted in an interesting thread of thought for me. Right after stating the desire to know himself, the two begin discussing love - an abstract idea. So, to know oneself is to define the abstract for yourself, by defining love, Socrates may know himself more thoroughly. Following, to engage in rhetoric, you must have these definitions ready. That doesn't mean the rhetoric cannot change your belief through discussion, just that you must enter in with some knowledge and opinion on the matter. I.e. don't enter rhetoric (discussion) blindly.
I'd be interested to know whether or not you view your post as rhetorical. This is a perplexing topic, because while your post certainly discusses the issue of true and false rhetoric, you are also persuading the reader that rhetoric is not persuasion. It's very difficult to have discussion geared towards truth without elements of persuasion, because as Michael Leff (an internationally known scholar of rhetoric) says, "rhetoric is epistemic since knowledge itself is a rhetorical construct." (108) Put into context of this discussion, it's impossible to separate the chicken from the egg. Perhaps I am totally wrong, and unimaginative when it comes to thinking of a way to discuss without persuading. But even right now in this comment, although I do not have a clear objective while I am discussing these things, I am more or less persuading you to think differently about your own post. Obviously you address this in your last sentence, that belief can be changed through discussion...but isn't that just the definition of persuasion?
ReplyDelete