The Role of Rhetoric in Philosophy

[levinas12]

An earlier discussion has provoked this thread. Does rhetoric has a role to play in philosophy? I would answer that it does, and in a big way.

But what is rhetoric? It is the ability to go inside other people’s heads and find out how they think about things. Rhetoric does not start with first principles but moves in the realm of opinion.

We see this happening in Plato’s dialogues. Socrates poses a question to solicit opinions from other characters in the dialogue - and then presses forward with more questions.

This approach is not peculiar to Plato. The turn to “opinion” can be found in Aristotle and on down to modern and contemporary philosophy. For example, Kant claims he is justifying the “vulgar” understanding of the world and Heidegger invokes the primacy of the “everyday”, of the practical “ready-to-hand” over the theoretical “present-at-hand”.

Does philosophy get beyond the realm of “opinion”? Certainly, philosophy points out what is “questionable” . But does it finally get out of the cave - does it provide a “final” answer?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Does philosophy get beyond the realm of “opinion”? Certainly, philosophy points out what is “questionable” . But does it finally get out of the cave - does it provide a “final” answer?

The standard complaint of scientists against philosophy is that it does not have the tools for providing final answers. This from a community of intellects who are endlessly altering their intellectual landscape and most of whom are forever busy despising and disproving their colleagues’ theories.

Only God provides final answers.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Rhetoric, if defined as the art of persuasion, has a role to play in philosophy. But that role can be played for good or for evil. Socrates like to play it for good. The Sophists often liked to play it for evil … or just for money.

Shakespeare has Marc Antony use it effectively to stir up a mob against the assassins in Julius Caesar. Hitler used it to stir up the mob against the Jews.

Jesus used it to stir the hearts of the apostles into thinking more deeply about their salvation.

Rhetoric is the art of presenting an idea in the most convincing dress possible.

So even scientists can be rhetorical, and often are.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

An earlier discussion has provoked this thread. Does rhetoric has a role to play in philosophy? I would answer that it does, and in a big way.

But what is rhetoric? It is the ability to go inside other people’s heads and find out how they think about things. Rhetoric does not start with first principles but moves in the realm of opinion.

We see this happening in Plato’s dialogues. Socrates poses a question to solicit opinions from other characters in the dialogue - and then presses forward with more questions.

This approach is not peculiar to Plato. The turn to “opinion” can be found in Aristotle and on down to modern and contemporary philosophy. For example, Kant claims he is justifying the “vulgar” understanding of the world and Heidegger invokes the primacy of the “everyday”, of the practical “ready-to-hand” over the theoretical “present-at-hand”.

Does philosophy get beyond the realm of “opinion”? Certainly, philosophy points out what is “questionable” . But does it finally get out of the cave - does it provide a “final” answer?

I think it is more along the lines of logic. By the use of logic, Aristotle was able to sort out the truth from the various opinions of his predecessors and arrive at the truth of things. But both his Physics and Metaphysics are grounded on certain self evident principles by which he was able to demonstrate the truth about mobile being and being as being or being per se. And Aquinas backed him up to the hilt, making only necessary modifications to the physical and metaphysica truths discovered by Aristotle and the well known Muslim and Jewisn philosophers which preceeded himself.

Augustine was in the same mode except he was dealing more with the Platonic philosophers which followed Aristotle.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

‘Rhetoric’ today has a nasty connotation. But classically it is not such a bad thing.

Yes, I think it has a role in philosophy, because philosophers do not share a set of common principles, and as such cannot argue purely on the basis of logic about the implications of some set of common principles. Philosophical systems need to be evaluated holistically, and one’s presentation of such will be a matter of rhetoric.

 

[levinas12]

By the use of logic, Aristotle was able to sort out the truth from the various opinions of his predecessors and arrive at the truth of things.

But what is the starting point? As you pointed out, Aristotle begins with the opinions of others. Only then does he begin the sorting process.

You see this happening in Plato as well (what was called in the dialogues the “second sailing”). Socrates starts off by asking people about their opinions, and only then does he proceeds to his questions.

This “getting inside” the head of another person is not easy. It requires understanding where someone is coming from. Only then is dialogue possible.

So philosophy begins with rhetoric. But not the rhetoric of the sophist. It is a “deeper” form of rhetoric. Not unlike what Jesus used in his conversation with the woman at the well.

 

[levinas12]

… philosophers do not share a set of common principles, and as such cannot argue purely on the basis of logic about the implications of some set of common principles.

Well, yes and no.

Philosophy starts with the “everyday” perception of things. And so, to that extent, it begins with what we all have in common.

Kant used an analogous approach (but on the level of what was commonly accepted in his day as “science”, e.g., Euclidean geometry or Newtonian physics). He assumed that these were legimitate “sciences” and then proceeded to present their “conditions of possibility”. This was a rhetorical move that started from the “common opinion” (albeit the common opinion of the “educated”).

In the 20th century, phenomenology takes a Kantian turn of sorts but, instead of starting from what is considered as science, phenomenology starts off with the “everyday” world and then proceeds to the “conditions” that makes such a world possible. Again, a rhetorical move.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But what is the starting point? As you pointed out, Aristotle begins with the opinions of others. Only then does he begin the sorting process.

You see this happening in Plato as well (what was called in the dialogues the “second sailing”). Socrates starts off by asking people about their opinions, and only then does he proceeds to his questions.

This “getting inside” the head of another person is not easy. It requires understanding where someone is coming from. Only then is dialogue possible.

So philosophy begins with rhetoric. But not the rhetoric of the sophist. It is a “deeper” form of rhetoric. Not unlike what Jesus used in his conversation with the woman at the well.

Plato, when he grew out of Socrates’ shadow, didn’t believe that philosophy had to do with people’s opinions in any way, shape, or form. Philosophy was the apprehension of reality with the mind’s eye, independent of all sensory experience.

And Plato definitely didn’t have a soft spot for rhetoric (despite his talent for rhetoric).

 

[polytropos]

Philosophy starts with the “everyday” perception of things. And so, to that extent, it begins with what we all have in common.

Kant used an analogous approach (but on the level of what was commonly accepted in his day as “science”, e.g., Euclidean geometry or Newtonian physics). He assumed that these were legimitate “sciences” and then proceeded to present their “conditions of possibility”. This was a rhetorical move that started from the “common opinion” (albeit the common opinion of the “educated”).

It seems a bit strained to say that philosophy in general starts from the “everyday” perceptions of things, since there have been plenty of philosophical systems that have denied the “everyday” perceptions of things. Kant is one example. And his task of showing the possibility of a priori science is appropriate, because he took those to be what we know, rather than the everyday perception of things. If they were common opinion at the time, then it seems unremarkable that philosophy attempts to begin with what is not too objectionable in a given period.

However, I don’t really see what Kant was doing as a rhetorical move. If a priori sciences do lead to knowledge, then a fortiori it is possible that a priori sciences lead to knowledge. To try to answer why that is the case is not rhetoric.

 

[levinas12]

It seems a bit strained to say that philosophy in general starts from the “everyday” perceptions of things, since there have been plenty of philosophical systems that have denied the “everyday” perceptions of things. Kant is one example. And his task of showing the possibility of a priori science is appropriate, because he took those to be what we know, rather than the everyday perception of things. If they were common opinion at the time, then it seems unremarkable that philosophy attempts to begin with what is not too objectionable in a given period.

However, I don’t really see what Kant was doing as a rhetorical move. If a priori sciences do lead to knowledge, then a fortiori it is possible that a priori sciences lead to knowledge. To try to answer why that is the case is not rhetoric.

Kant’s move was rhetorical - for example, he accepted as “simply given” the universal and necessary synthetic “truths” involved in Euclidean geometry. His argument was that, if Euclidean geometry presents universal, necessary synthetic “truths”, then it could not be based on induction and Humean sense impressions - because the latter cannot yield this type of “truth”. There must instead be a “pure intuition” of space that validates the universality and apodicticity of Euclidean geometry as a system of synthetic truth.

This is the gist of a transcendental argument - you begin with what your “audience” accepts as a “given” (“A”), and then you show that “A” requires “B”. Notice that you do not have to demonstrate the truth of “A”. The truth of "A’ is simply accepted.

This is the “rhetorical” moment in Kant. Rhetoric does not always reflect the everyday understanding, just the understanding that pertains to your particular audience. What defines rhetoric is that something given is simply “accepted” as true.

It’s also helpful to point out that “B” is not logically entailed by “A” (at least in a straightforward “formal” or “analytic” sense). Rather, “B” is the transcendental condition of possibility for “A” to be universally and necessarily “synthetically” true (and, in Kant’s case, all of this has to be seen against the backdrop of Lockean/Humean empiricism).

 

[levinas12]

It seems a bit strained to say that philosophy in general starts from the “everyday” perceptions of things …

I was initially thinking of Husserl and Heidegger and their attempt to get behind the presuppositions of everyday life – and of similar moves in 20th century British philosophy (e.g., Wittgenstein).

But this is not just a contemporary “ploy”.

Both Aristotle and Plato began their discussions by engaging with the “opinions” of other people.

And I think Thomas Aquinas did the same thing.

Philosophy is a “conversation”, a “dialogue” where it is crucial to understand what’s in the head of the other person.

I’m not confining philosophy to the realm of opinion. All I’m saying is that’s where it starts.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I was initially thinking of Husserl and Heidegger and their attempt to get behind the presuppositions of everyday life – and of similar moves in 20th century British philosophy (e.g., Wittgenstein).

But this is not just a contemporary “ploy”.

Both Aristotle and Plato began their discussions by engaging with the “opinions” of other people.

And I think Thomas Aquinas did the same thing.

Philosophy is a “conversation”, a “dialogue” where it is crucial to understand what’s in the head of the other person.

I’m not confining philosophy to the realm of opinion. All I’m saying is that’s where it starts.

There is no realm of opinion. Opinions are claims about the truth. There is no such thing as “mere opinion”.

 

[levinas12]

There is no realm of opinion. Opinions are claims about the truth. There is no such thing as “mere opinion”. ::

What about Plato’s divided line in the Republic?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What about Plato’s divided line in the Republic?

Plato divided the world into (a) things liable to change, and (b) things not liable to change. You could only have opinions about the things liable to change, whereas you could know the things not liable to change (the Forms).

Plato’s point, then, has nothing to do with the way we use the word “opinion” today.

 

[levinas12]

Plato’s point, then, has nothing to do with the way we use the word “opinion” today.

So why did Plato use a “dialogue” format in which people were constantly offering their opinions?

I would argue that Plato never leaves the cave of opinions (but he does destabilize the cave - so much so that Nietzsche says that Socrates is the nastiest of men).

Even the opinion about the theory of forms comes under attack (see the Parmenides).

Remember - Socrates claimed to be radically ignorant. The only thing he knew was that he didn’t know anything.

So what is the purpose of philosophy according to Plato? First to raise the fundamental questions. And then to keep these questions alive by pointing out the weaknesses in the attempts to provide “final” answers. Thus, the philosophical conversation continues indefinitely without closure.

This, by the way, is why Plato says that philosophy is the most erotic human activity.

 

[levinas12]

Aristotle was able to sort out the truth from the various opinions of his predecessors and arrive at the truth of things. But both his Physics and Metaphysics are grounded on certain self evident principles by which he was able to demonstrate the truth about mobile being and being as being or being per se.

But didn’t Aristotle admit that he was “perplexed” about the meaning of the “to be”? See the Aristotle quote that Heidegger inserts at the beginning of his book, Being and Time.

It seems that, at the end of day, we are left only with the “question”. The philosophical conversation continues.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So why did Plato use a “dialogue” format in which people were constantly offering their opinions?

Plato answers this question, actually. In the Phaedrus and the Seventh Letter, he says that human language is not capable of expressing any truth of lasting import – presumably because the meanings of terms are subject to misunderstanding and linguistic change. For Plato, the only way to come to real knowledge is in the context of a long conversation between friends, where after much conversation (dialectic) the truth suddenly dawns on a person in a flash of insight. (This is directly from the Seventh Letter).

So engaging in opinions is necessary for knowledge, but the opinions are worthless in themselves.

(More specifically, we ACT like a thing like “the Good” is liable to change, and treat it like an opinion, but IN REALITY the Good is not subject to change. It is the proper object of knowledge, not opinion.)

I would argue that Plato never leaves the cave of opinions (but he does destabilize the cave - so much so that Nietzsche says that Socrates is the nastiest of men).

Even the opinion about the theory of forms comes under attack (see the Parmenides).

Yes, because Plato didn’t believe in dogma. He questioned everything, even his most cherished beliefs.

Remember - Socrates claimed to be radically ignorant. The only thing he knew was that he didn’t know anything.

But Plato definitely distanced himself from Socrates.

So what is the purpose of philosophy according to Plato? First to raise the fundamental questions. And then to keep these questions alive by pointing out the weaknesses in the attempts to provide “final” answers. Thus, the philosophical conversation continues indefinitely without closure.

But the GOAL is to get to truth. The goal isn’t opinion.

Later in his career, Plato writes more like an evangelist, and less like Socrates. I don’t think this is a coincidence. He really thought he had many final and lasting answers to tricky philosophical questions – and, in my mind, he was right about many of these answers.

This, by the way, is why Plato says that philosophy is the most erotic human activity.

One of the words for conversation in Greek means “intercourse.”

 

[levinas12]

… (This is directly from the Seventh Letter)

Where precisely in the Seventh Letter?
Prodigal_Son; 12085837:

… and, in my mind, he was right about many of these answers.

Which answers specifically?
Prodigal_Son; 12085837:

One of the words for conversation in Greek means “intercourse.”

I am curious - what is this Greek word?

The Greek word for the participation of a particular entity in a Form is “methexis” - and this word may have certain connotations.

I have a general question - have you read what Leo Strauss has to say about Plato?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Where precisely in the Seventh Letter?

344a-b. It says there:

In one word, neither receptivity nor memory will ever produce knowledge in him who has no affinity with the object, since it does not germinate to start with in alien states of mind; consequently neither those who have no natural connection or affinity with things just, and all else that is fair, although they are both receptive and retentive in various ways of other things, nor yet those who possess such affinity but are unreceptive and unretentive—none, I say, of these will ever learn to the utmost possible extent [344b] the truth of virtue nor yet of vice. For in learning these objects it is necessary to learn at the same time both what is false and what is true of the whole of Existence, and that through the most diligent and prolonged investigation, as I said at the commencement; and it is by means of the examination of each of these objects, comparing one with another—names and definitions, visions and sense-perceptions,—proving them by kindly proofs and employing questionings and answerings that are void of envy—it is by such means, and hardly so, that there bursts out the light of intelligence and reason regarding each object in the mind of him who uses every effort of which mankind is capable.

Which answers specifically?

He was right that the truth about matters of value exists independently of human opinions, and he was right that an engagement with human opinions is the only way for people to obtain reliable knowledge about these matters. He was right that words are an unstable medium that does not “contain” knowledge.

I am curious - what is this Greek word?

Sunousia - “being with”, “intercourse”, “conversation”. There are a number of other similar words in Greek, that are peppered throughout Plato’s discussions of knowledge, especially in the Symposium. “Sunetheia” is another such word.

I have a general question - have you read what Leo Strauss has to say about Plato?

Nope.

 

[levinas12]

He was right that words are an unstable medium that does not “contain” knowledge.

But words are all we have to work with.

Thank you for the Greek words. I can see that you know Greek which is a rare thing these days. I was fortunate to go to a Jesuit high school back in the 1960s which forced me to take 4 years of Latin and 3 years of classical Greek. I am very grateful to the Jesuits for their “pedagogy”. Unfortunately, I just learned that my old school dropped classical Greek a few years ago (due to lack of interest).

I think you would find Leo Strauss interesting but provocative. He was part of a very talented group of Jewish intellectuals who studied under Heidegger. Because he was Jewish, he had to flee Germany in the 1930’s. He was affiliated with the New School in New York and then moved on to the University of Chicago. His main focus was political philosophy.

Strauss realized that the ancient Greeks had much to teach us and you could say that he revived the war between the ancients and moderns (with the ancients winning out).

He was a very close reader of the text.

You may not agree with Strauss’ readings however. He saw philosophy as a never ending conversation. Although we may not attain the truth of the Whole (contra Hegel), we must always continue to pursue it (by keeping alive the fundamental questions which never change). Although there is a question whether Strauss was a Jewish believer, he always insisted that philosophy cannot refute revelation.

Strauss’ book, Natural Right and History, is a good place to start.