Thread: How Do You View Rhetoric?

I'm interested in how all of you view rhetoric. I searched the archives of the board, and I find that in many cases, the word rhetoric is used perjoratively, in opposition to logic: "note the rhetoric my opponent is resorting to."

Is rhetoric inherently misleading or false? Can rhetoric be logical?

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

Rhetoric:
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.
8. (in older use) a work on rhetoric.

Depends on which definition you use. Isn't English wonderful?

Originally Posted by Just1covenanter

I'm interested in how all of you view rhetoric.

Usually in "print," whether on paper or computer monitor. It's difficult to view when it is in verbal form. Even then, I pretend to see the words rolling out of folks' mouths.

Aristotle defined it as "the faculty of observing, in any case, the available means of persuasion." I find it just as easy, when I teach undergrads, to call it "the art of persuasion."

None of the Dictionary.com definitions are particularly good, IMHO.

The art of persuasion? Then it depends upon whether your position is right or wrong. If your position is right then it's okay to be persuasive.

Would you hold rhetoric and sophistry as different terms?

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by Just1covenanter

I'm interested in how all of you view rhetoric.

Usually in "print," whether on paper or computer monitor. It's difficult to view when it is in verbal form. Even then, I pretend to see the words rolling out of folks' mouths.

Gotta love this..

Originally Posted by Skyler

The art of persuasion? Then it depends upon whether your position is right or wrong. If your position is right then it's okay to be persuasive.

Would you hold rhetoric and sophistry as different terms?

Sure; sophistry is an even more perjorative term for rhetoric.

No, of course the debate has always existed between Plato (rationalism) and Gorgias (sophistic relativism). The problem is that to ask a question like this seems to assume that rhetoric plays no role in discovering truth.

If that's true, then to what end this board?

Sophistry is a term that can be applied retroactively (I see now that he was wrong; therefore, his rhetoric is sophistry), or it can be applied as a rhetorical (yes, rhetorical) move against an adversary (this kind of sophistry will not profit anyone). But to put it simply, I think it comes down to this:

Rhetoric is done in good faith.

Sophistry is not.

Rhetoric is inevitable outside of specialized disciplines or conversations (e.g. symbolic logic).

Aristotle's definition is neutral, because it is only about finding the means of persuasion, and not necessarily about employing all of those means.

Quintilian argued that rhetoric was essential to the education of a good citizen.

Augustine thought the rhetoric of the academics was slovenly, but he argued that pastors would be impoverished in conveying the Scriptures without a solid grasp of the topics and theories developed in the realm of rhetoric.

The survival of rhetoric as a practice in the Middle Ages was due almost solely to its use by preachers (nowadays they call it homiletics).

George Campbell and R.L. Dabney both wrote books on rhetoric, which took a positive view of it as a science of speaking well.

And I'm omitting an awful lot of other things that could be said.

Rhetoric has been defined in many ways, but it has always concerned itself with the various means of expression of meaning through symbols. In that regard, even the worst definitions of rhetoric may provide things useful to apprehend.

Quintilian also said that rhetoric was "a good man speaking well." (A far cry from the common uses of the word these days)

Useless fact: I named my dog Quintilian. He goes by Quin. He doesn't seem to mind.

Originally Posted by Just1covenanter

Quintilian also said that rhetoric was "a good man speaking well." (A far cry from the common uses of the word these days)

Useless fact: I named my dog Quintilian. He goes by Quin. He doesn't seem to mind.

The enlightenment went a long way in destroying the value of rhetoric as more than the art of style. Many look back at Peter Ramus as the cause of the problem, but I think it has more to do with the rise of the autonomous reasoning mind than it does with Ramus's splicing of the classical canon and predilection for (quasi)logical analysis.

Locke and Kant do more damage to rhetoric in my estimation.

Originally Posted by JTB

Rhetoric is inevitable outside of specialized disciplines or conversations (e.g. symbolic logic).

I'm curious...could you give me an example of a rhetoric-free conversation like this one?

Are you speaking of a conversation composed entirely of strings of syllogisms?

Originally Posted by Just1covenanter

Originally Posted by JTB

Rhetoric is inevitable outside of specialized disciplines or conversations (e.g. symbolic logic).

I'm curious...could you give me an example of a rhetoric-free conversation like this one?

Are you speaking of a conversation composed entirely of strings of syllogisms?

Not syllogisms, because words require definitions. I'm talking about highly abstract symbol systems, like symbolic logic or algebraic equations, where the definitions are fixed and the solutions are not tied to any particular application.

Ok, that makes sense.

Hello Gents,

I have always understood rhetoric to be independent of the truth. I understand rhetoric to be the art of clear and persuasive communication. Granted, most people will find symbolic logic to be utterly foreign, but to those who understand what all the little symbols mean, it can be very persuasive. However, I grant it does cut out much of the emtional appeal that rhetoricians use in terms of voice inflection, body language and word choice.

In the end, the study of rhetoric is good. But if the character foundation upon which it is built is bad, then it will be a tool to manipulate and truth will be pushed to the back seat.

Brian

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by Just1covenanter

I'm interested in how all of you view rhetoric.

Usually in "print," whether on paper or computer monitor. It's difficult to view when it is in verbal form. Even then, I pretend to see the words rolling out of folks' mouths.

Indeed, I pretend that the words roll out and slide down a pretty rainbow... sometimes they land, and play around in, a pot of gold at the bottom of the rainbow slide.

Originally Posted by Just1covenanter

I'm interested in how all of you view rhetoric. I searched the archives of the board, and I find that in many cases, the word rhetoric is used perjoratively, in opposition to logic: "note the rhetoric my opponent is resorting to."

Is rhetoric inherently misleading or false? Can rhetoric be logical?

I've noticed that many people who are clearly defeated logically, hide behind the word rhetoric in an attempt to invalidate their opponents argument. I once posted with an arminian on another site that would claim any explaination you gave for the meaning of scripture was rhetoric and he would tell you to use scripture alone without explaination to prove your point, yet he could spew all the opinions he wanted and that was somehow not rhetoric....

So, it is just a way to say "Please stop saying that because I can't refute it and it's disturbing me."

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Hello Gents,

I have always understood rhetoric to be independent of the truth. I understand rhetoric to be the art of clear and persuasive communication. Granted, most people will find symbolic logic to be utterly foreign, but to those who understand what all the little symbols mean, it can be very persuasive. However, I grant it does cut out much of the emtional appeal that rhetoricians use in terms of voice inflection, body language and word choice.

In the end, the study of rhetoric is good. But if the character foundation upon which it is built is bad, then it will be a tool to manipulate and truth will be pushed to the back seat.

Brian

Hi Brian,

I agree with a good deal of what you said. However, I have this quibble: you said rhetoric is independent of the truth. This assumes the Platonic viewpoint that truth (usually defined in terms of dialectic) is the content, and rhetoric is merely the (often misleading) delivery mechanism. The question I have is: how is that truth arrived upon in the first place? From an autonomous reasoning mind? Or in the midst of a rhetorical community, like (I would argue) this one? Note: I do not discount the scriptures as the normative source of authority. Scriptural interpretation, however, is done, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, in the midst of a rhetorical discourse community of believers, each contending for the best interpretation. Even the use of commentaries is a (virtual) conference with other minds.

I agree completely with your last paragraph.

-----Added 9/16/2009 at 10:39:18 EST-----

Originally Posted by DD2009

I've noticed that many people who are clearly defeated logically, hide behind the word rhetoric in an attempt to invalidate their opponents argument. I once posted with an arminian on another site that would claim any explaination you gave for the meaning of scripture was rhetoric and he would tell you to use scripture alone without explaination to prove your point, yet he could spew all the opinions he wanted and that was somehow not rhetoric....

So, it is just a way to say "Please stop saying that because I can't refute it and it's disturbing me."

Yes, I agree. A pretty impoverished use of the word, but a common one. And ironically, a rhetorical one (enthymeme):

Look how desperate my opponent is (conclusion);
He's resorting to rhetoric (premise);
Rhetoric is for people desperate for a real argument (implied premise)

Big fan of rhetoric. I see it as a very powerful and positive tool.

I was fortunate to take a lot of rhetoric and persuasion classes in my undergrad, though I wish I could have retained more of it!

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Hello Gents,

I have always understood rhetoric to be independent of the truth. I understand rhetoric to be the art of clear and persuasive communication. Granted, most people will find symbolic logic to be utterly foreign, but to those who understand what all the little symbols mean, it can be very persuasive. However, I grant it does cut out much of the emtional appeal that rhetoricians use in terms of voice inflection, body language and word choice.

In the end, the study of rhetoric is good. But if the character foundation upon which it is built is bad, then it will be a tool to manipulate and truth will be pushed to the back seat.

Brian

It is all in how you define rhetoric Brian. You admit even in your paragraph here that symbolic logic can have a persuasive effect because its form serves the purposes of argumentation. I don't include those systems under the definition of rhetoric because I confine the realm of rhetoric to common discourse. Dialectic, which was considered a more specialized form of discourse by the ancients who first coined rhetoric, made the same distinction, which I think is helpful.

That being said, I don't think rhetorc is independent of the truth, any more than I believe means are independent of ends. Augustine believed that those hostile to the truth would use eloquence to persuade, and thought it best to be eloquent with the truth to combat them. Thus, rhetoric as a tool of expressing the truth in a particular situation to a particular audience.

Here's a good way to think about tying it all together. Dialectic (in which we may include things like symbolic logic) helps us to discern what the truth is, and the reasons that lead us their or support our conclusions. Rhetoric helps us to convey those conclusions and reasons to audience who do not have the ability to follow symbolic logic, are not inspired by its form, or are incapable of seeing the applications of truth to their particular circumstances.

Rhetoric, in the hands of the godly, becomes a means whereby truth is understood by and applied to a particular audience.

Just think about how difficult it would be to preach a sermon using only symbols! Not only would it be entirely too abstract for anyone to apply, but it isn't the language that Scripture uses to convey its truth to us. The Bible uses figures of speech, logos, ethos, and pathos, and a variety of other things that rhetoric pays attention to and utilizes in the service of some purpose.

If that purpose is to glorify God, whence the vituperations upon rhetoric?

-----Added 9/16/2009 at 12:47:22 EST-----

Originally Posted by DD2009

Originally Posted by Just1covenanter

I'm interested in how all of you view rhetoric. I searched the archives of the board, and I find that in many cases, the word rhetoric is used perjoratively, in opposition to logic: "note the rhetoric my opponent is resorting to."

Is rhetoric inherently misleading or false? Can rhetoric be logical?

I've noticed that many people who are clearly defeated logically, hide behind the word rhetoric in an attempt to invalidate their opponents argument. I once posted with an arminian on another site that would claim any explaination you gave for the meaning of scripture was rhetoric and he would tell you to use scripture alone without explaination to prove your point, yet he could spew all the opinions he wanted and that was somehow not rhetoric....

So, it is just a way to say "Please stop saying that because I can't refute it and it's disturbing me."

I've also noted people who hide behind "logic" or "reason" in order to avoid a plainly stated truth that their rebellious hearts cannot accept. Any tool may be misused.

Paul was a fan of rhetoric. He would use reason and persuasion.

Acts 19:1-8 says, "It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' And they said to him, 'No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.' And he said, 'Into what then were you baptized?' And they said, 'Into John's baptism.' Paul said, 'John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.' When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
There were in all about twelve men. And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God."

Originally Posted by JTB

I've also noted people who hide behind "logic" or "reason" in order to avoid a plainly stated truth that their rebellious hearts cannot accept. Any tool may be misused.

That is true. Everything fails in light of the conviction of the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Hello Gents,

I *never* said rhetoric was bad in and of itself. I said that if it was not used with character and integrity, then it is manipulative. Rhetoric is simply a tool of communcation and persuasion and has *nothing* to do with truth. Case in point, for those who have been on formal debate teams, you might travel one place to debate a particular topic and be required to affirm the resolution, but in the very next competition you might be required to deny the same resolution. The "winner" of the debate has nothing to do with whether or not you were committed to the truth of the resolution you were debating. It was all about technique in communication and persuasion. JTB, you indicated this when you said, "Augustine believed that those hostile to the truth would use eloquence to persuade, and thought it best to be eloquent with the truth to combat them." This proves that elequent and persuasive communication, i.e., rhetoric, can be used by both sides of the debate when both sides cannot be right. As such, rhetoric equally applies to the False as it does to the Truth. Therefore, rheotric is independent of the Truth.

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. There are passages in Paul that indicates some deprecation of mere rhetoric when it came to him preaching the gospel. If you need to me to provide the texts that indicates this, I am happy to do so.

Originally Posted by Brian Bosse

Hello Gents,

I *never* said rhetoric was bad in and of itself. I said that if it was not used with character and integrity, then it is manipulative. Rhetoric is simply a tool of communcation and persuasion and has *nothing* to do with truth. Case in point, for those who have been on formal debate teams, you might travel one place to debate a particular topic and be required to affirm the resolution, but in the very next competition you might be required to deny the same resolution. The "winner" of the debate has nothing to do with whether or not you were committed to the truth of the resolution you were debating. It was all about technique in communication and persuasion. JTB, you indicated this when you said, "Augustine believed that those hostile to the truth would use eloquence to persuade, and thought it best to be eloquent with the truth to combat them." This proves that elequent and persuasive communication, i.e., rhetoric, can be used by both sides of the debate when both sides cannot be right. As such, rhetoric equally applies to the False as it does to the Truth. Therefore, rheotric is independent of the Truth.

Sincerely,

Brian
P.S. There are passages in Paul that indicates some deprecation of mere rhetoric when it came to him preaching the gospel. If you need to me to provide the texts that indicates this, I am happy to do so.

I agree with that explanation, but it is also a rather superficial claim. Upon your construction sense perception is independent of the truth. Upon your construction language is independent of the truth. Upon your construction propositions are independent of the truth. All of these examples equally apply to the False as well as the Truth.

P.S. There are passages in Paul that indicates some deprecation of mere rhetoric when it came to him preaching the gospel. If you need to me to provide the texts that indicates this, I am happy to do so.

One of those passages comes to mind. For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, Paul said that his message and preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power so that one's faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. I've heard that this means that Paul preached in a straightforward manner. He did not use flattery. He did not tickle people's ears. He wasn't trying to impress people with his eloquence.

Originally Posted by JTB

I've also noted people who hide behind "logic" or "reason" in order to avoid a plainly stated truth that their rebellious hearts cannot accept. Any tool may be misused.

True; it's been noted many times that logic, being a tool for judging the relationships between propositions, is valid and useful for arriving at truth only insofar as its premises are true. That's why a syllogism can be valid and still be false.

-----Added 9/16/2009 at 02:46:31 EST-----

Originally Posted by cih1355

One of those passages comes to mind. For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, Paul said that his message and preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power so that one's faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. I've heard that this means that Paul preached in a straightforward manner. He did not use flattery. He did not tickle people's ears. He wasn't trying to impress people with his eloquence.

Fine by me, but Jesus himself was a skilled orator, using stories, parables, rhetorical questions, turns of phrase and impassioned rebukes. He did not simply present arguments. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by Just1covenanter

I'm interested in how all of you view rhetoric.

Usually in "print," whether on paper or computer monitor. It's difficult to view when it is in verbal form. Even then, I pretend to see the words rolling out of folks' mouths.

Indeed, I pretend that the words roll out and slide down a pretty rainbow... sometimes they land, and play around in, a pot of gold at the bottom of the rainbow slide.

Amen.

Acts 24:1-21 provides a contrast between Paul's mode of speech and that of a professional public speaker. While Paul is certainly plainer, that does not mean that he is less skilled or less effective.

Didn't some contemporary of Plato's define rhetoric (with approval I think, for its usefulness) as "the art of making the worse cause sound like the better"?

Look at all the rhetoric you guys are using. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by Just1covenanter

Originally Posted by JTB

I've also noted people who hide behind "logic" or "reason" in order to avoid a plainly stated truth that their rebellious hearts cannot accept. Any tool may be misused.

True; it's been noted many times that logic, being a tool for judging the relationships between propositions, is valid and useful for arriving at truth only insofar as its premises are true. That's why a syllogism can be valid and still be false.

-----Added 9/16/2009 at 02:46:31 EST-----

Originally Posted by cih1355

One of those passages comes to mind. For example, in 1 Corinthians 2:4-5, Paul said that his message and preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power so that one's faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. I've heard that this means that Paul preached in a straightforward manner. He did not use flattery. He did not tickle people's ears. He wasn't trying to impress people with his eloquence.

Fine by me, but Jesus himself was a skilled orator, using stories, parables, rhetorical questions, turns of phrase and impassioned rebukes. He did not simply present arguments. Do you disagree?

I do not disagree.

Originally Posted by JennyG

Didn't some contemporary of Plato's define rhetoric (with approval I think, for its usefulness) as "the art of making the worse cause sound like the better"?

I think that was actually Aristotle, but he was quoting a well-known phrase. Aristotle approved of rhetoric, however. He placed it alongside dialectic, while Plato made it subject to dialectic.

Originally Posted by Just1covenanter

Originally Posted by JennyG

Didn't some contemporary of Plato's define rhetoric (with approval I think, for its usefulness) as "the art of making the worse cause sound like the better"?

I think that was actually Aristotle, but he was quoting a well-known phrase. Aristotle approved of rhetoric, however. He placed it alongside dialectic, while Plato made it subject to dialectic.

One of the accusations against Socrates in Plato's account of his trial (entitled "Apology") is that he makes the worse case appear to be the better. There is some validity to the charge is one accepts "the better" as what is "common sense." Socrates argues in Plato's Gorgias that it is better to suffer an injustice that to commit injustice, and he argues that it would be better to be punished for committing injustice than to get away with injustice, which went against the grain a bit for his time and culture.