The science of winning arguments is called Rhetoric, and it is one of the Dark Arts. Its
study is forbidden to rationalists, and its tomes and treatises are kept under lock and
key in a particularly dark corner of the Miskatonic University library. More than this it is
not lawful to speak.
Huh? This can’t be the consensus view here. Is it?
Because my opinion has developed over the years to conclude the exact opposite. Rhetoric has always been “the study of how to use language well.” What has happened? Wikipedia defines it as “the art and study of the use of language with persuasive effect”. Ah, that happened to it. Anyone interested I invite to compare the definitions provided by various dictionaries. Some dictionaries will offer both kinds of definitions, because lexicographers aren’t supposed to decide which definition is best.
But I implore others, especially those with a rational bent, to not give up the decent meaning of the term rhetoric. It isn’t just “flowery language” that some allege can only be used to obscure thought. It’s a whole study, what was once a whole discipline(1). It’s the art of how to use language well.
I used to think otherwise, until I’ve been in too many rather strange discussions with people online who are, otherwise, intelligent people. What happens in many cases is that people misunderstand each other, but this misunderstanding isn’t due to the semantics of the language used. In many cases, for instance, my meaning is exactly contrary to what others apprehend; yet, the words are all there, how did they misunderstand?
What I didn’t understand but realize now is that we need to take some responsibility not just for the semantics of language, but for the pragmatics. That is, some thought and skill needs to go into not just the meaning of what we say, but the effect we have on others by saying it. Even between rationalists.
One of the most common things I’ve seen, not just in my own discussions, but in observing the discussions here and elsewhere on the web, is misleading emphasis. For instance, obviously, it should be the very point you’re making that you should be emphasizing in your language. But if this emphasis is done poorly, readers may not realize that you’re making a point at all, and might ask “get to the point”. In other cases, the wrong point is being emphasized, and the writer or speaker is dumbfounded when he realized that his point was missed altogether.
I’m not someone who has studied much rhetoric. I’m just realizing it’s something I should have already been studying, and now I’m engaging with it. I don’t think studying rhetoric will cause you to become a better writer or speaker; most of us become better writers by reading good writers. But I think it is useful, for a rationalist community such as this one, to have a set of terms for various rhetorical tropes. This could begin the process of rationalists engaging each other in rhetorical critique, as well as logical and grammatical critique(2), which I think would be a net benefit.
(1) Case in point: This sentence is what rhetoricians call mesodiplosis.
(2) My philosophical dictionary alludes to a notable contradistinction between grammar and rhetoric: grammar is about using language correctly, rhetoric is about using language well.
Huh? This can’t be the consensus view here. Is it?
Because my opinion has developed over the years to conclude the exact opposite. Rhetoric has always been “the study of how to use language well.” What has happened? Wikipedia defines it as “the art and study of the use of language with persuasive effect”. Ah, that happened to it. Anyone interested I invite to compare the definitions provided by various dictionaries. Some dictionaries will offer both kinds of definitions, because lexicographers aren’t supposed to decide which definition is best.
But I implore others, especially those with a rational bent, to not give up the decent meaning of the term rhetoric. It isn’t just “flowery language” that some allege can only be used to obscure thought. It’s a whole study, what was once a whole discipline(1). It’s the art of how to use language well.
I used to think otherwise, until I’ve been in too many rather strange discussions with people online who are, otherwise, intelligent people. What happens in many cases is that people misunderstand each other, but this misunderstanding isn’t due to the semantics of the language used. In many cases, for instance, my meaning is exactly contrary to what others apprehend; yet, the words are all there, how did they misunderstand?
What I didn’t understand but realize now is that we need to take some responsibility not just for the semantics of language, but for the pragmatics. That is, some thought and skill needs to go into not just the meaning of what we say, but the effect we have on others by saying it. Even between rationalists.
One of the most common things I’ve seen, not just in my own discussions, but in observing the discussions here and elsewhere on the web, is misleading emphasis. For instance, obviously, it should be the very point you’re making that you should be emphasizing in your language. But if this emphasis is done poorly, readers may not realize that you’re making a point at all, and might ask “get to the point”. In other cases, the wrong point is being emphasized, and the writer or speaker is dumbfounded when he realized that his point was missed altogether.
I’m not someone who has studied much rhetoric. I’m just realizing it’s something I should have already been studying, and now I’m engaging with it. I don’t think studying rhetoric will cause you to become a better writer or speaker; most of us become better writers by reading good writers. But I think it is useful, for a rationalist community such as this one, to have a set of terms for various rhetorical tropes. This could begin the process of rationalists engaging each other in rhetorical critique, as well as logical and grammatical critique(2), which I think would be a net benefit.
(1) Case in point: This sentence is what rhetoricians call mesodiplosis.
(2) My philosophical dictionary alludes to a notable contradistinction between grammar and rhetoric: grammar is about using language correctly, rhetoric is about using language well.