Quote: "Socrates suggests that persuasion-to-belief--bad rhetoric--is like the lust of the nonlover, which exploits the object of lust at the same time it destroys the one who lusts. But persuasion-to-knowledge--good rhetoric--is like love, which seeks only to make the beloved a better person, to bring the beloved closer to transcendent good, and not to satisfy the carnal desires of the lover."
Question: Is this an agreeable comparison? Does one need proven knowledge in order to make a passionate claim? Or is legitimate belief enough to sustain persuasion of another party without being exploitive?
I believe that legitimate belief is enough to sustain persuasion of another party without being exploitive. It may just be the harsh wording that is being used but a passionate argument based just on belief or feeling is not necessarily exploiting someone. For example, significant others can get into arguments from time to time. Say one particular argument is just based on the feeling of one but not on solid knowledge. This does not mean that this person is trying to manipulate the other but is just coping with their feelings and beliefs. I think that times have changed since the days of Socrates and some language has changed along with it. I understand the comparison he makes but it is different with today's society.
ReplyDeleteI think it's fair to hold somebody to the standard of having some sort of proven knowledge to back up an opinion that's coming from passion. For even something as passionate as religion, that has few to none instances of physical proof, the individual should be able to at least reference the religious text or history of the religion to a small degree. A person doesn't have to be an expert to hold an opinion, but for it to be at least moderately informed doesn't seem like a stretch.
ReplyDeleteI think that some form of proven knowledge is needed in order to make any claim to persuade someone. I think you can argue with someone and really believe what you're saying, and sure maybe you'll persuade someone naive enough to take your stance as well, but for the most part, I think most people will require some sort of evidence. I know that whenever I argue with any of my friends, and I make a claim, they either ask me to prove it, or back it up with some sort of factual knowledge. I think without facts, or some form of evidence, it's very hard to persuade someone that, this did or didn't happen. It's like the phrase, "Pics or it didn't happen." Surely, it could've happened, but at the end of the day it's one person's word over another, and without proof, persuasion might seem next to impossible.
ReplyDelete