3 ms·

Before dismissing the value of rhetoric, I recommend reading it: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html

Before dismissing the value of rhetoric, I recommend reading it: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html I'm perfectly serious, it's literally the foundational text on the subject and we still have that text for good reason. Here's the first paragraph: > Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art.

kerkeslager 2y ago
> I'm perfectly serious, it's literally the foundational text on the subject and we still have that text for good reason. So we know what mistakes of the past to avoid? Before taking Aristotle seriously, remember that Aristotle believed that women have fewer teeth than men and that objects fall toward the ground at a constant speed. He's certainly worth understanding due to his influence on western civilization, but that doesn't mean you should believe anything he says. His ideas predate a lot of our modern understanding of logic and therefore don't follow it. If you're interested in history, have at it, but if you're trying to figure out what to believe today, Aristotle can safely be ignored. The fact that modern philosophy teaches Aristotle (and many other philosophers whose ideas are obviously wrong and outdated) as if we should believe what they believe, is why I generally am comfortable dismissing most academia around philosophy as worthless. There's plenty of valuable philosophy out there, but the people with good philosophical ideas are generally practicing experts in other fields. Darwin, MLK, or Mr. Rogers are better philosophers than any of the philosophers typically presented as such. Philosophers present as philosophers because they can't or won't deal with the limitations of coming up with useful ideas that stand up to scrutiny. The bit that you quoted basically takes a long time to say, "People use rhetoric intuitively but you can study, learn, and practice rhetoric to get better at it." At least that's not obviously false, but it's not particularly insightful, and it's certainly not a reason we should value rhetoric. Most people at some point in their lives pick their nose, some better than others, and it's certainly a skill that can be developed, but that's certainly not a defense of nose picking.
- samatman 2y ago
  > Aristotle believed that women have fewer teeth So you haven't read Aristotle, you've read about Aristotle. Many such cases. I didn't recommend Aristotle without qualifications. I recommended Rhetoric. It's a stack of hundred dollar bills just sitting on the sidewalk, which you can pick up any time you want. If you'd rather feel superior to someone from the ancient world, because you were taught things he didn't know (and own none of that insight yourself), rather than gittin gud, that's up to you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    > So you haven't read Aristotle, you've read about Aristotle. Incorrect. It's just easier to explain why the teeth thing is wrong than to explain why, for example, Aristotelian ethics is an ex-post-facto justification for slavery. > It's a stack of hundred dollar bills just sitting on the sidewalk, which you can pick up any time you want. If we're exchanging rhetorical blows instead of any sort of logic, then I'll note that when you pick the bills up they have Jesus' face on them instead of Benjamin Franklin's, and the back is religious proselytizing. It's a good idea to pick it up, but only so that you can dispose of the litter properly. > If you'd rather feel superior to someone from the ancient world, because you were taught things he didn't know (and own none of that insight yourself), rather than gittin gud, that's up to you. Nice ad hominem, but I don't feel superior to him. In his situation I likely would have made many of the same mistakes, in addition to a few mistakes all my own. That doesn't mean we need to pretend they weren't mistakes. I'm less concerned with the ownership of ideas and more concerned with whether those ideas are true and/or useful. The fact that Aristotle was given very little foundational knowledge on which to build his ideas is all the more reason to ignore his foundation-less ideas. > You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. How confident are you that you aren't the horse in this metaphor?

kerkeslager 2y ago

> I'm perfectly serious, it's literally the foundational text on the subject and we still have that text for good reason. So we know what mistakes of the past to avoid? Before taking Aristotle seriously, remember that Aristotle believed that women have fewer teeth than men and that objects fall toward the ground at a constant speed. He's certainly worth understanding due to his influence on western civilization, but that doesn't mean you should believe anything he says. His ideas predate a lot of our modern understanding of logic and therefore don't follow it. If you're interested in history, have at it, but if you're trying to figure out what to believe today, Aristotle can safely be ignored. The fact that modern philosophy teaches Aristotle (and many other philosophers whose ideas are obviously wrong and outdated) as if we should believe what they believe, is why I generally am comfortable dismissing most academia around philosophy as worthless. There's plenty of valuable philosophy out there, but the people with good philosophical ideas are generally practicing experts in other fields. Darwin, MLK, or Mr. Rogers are better philosophers than any of the philosophers typically presented as such. Philosophers present as philosophers because they can't or won't deal with the limitations of coming up with useful ideas that stand up to scrutiny. The bit that you quoted basically takes a long time to say, "People use rhetoric intuitively but you can study, learn, and practice rhetoric to get better at it." At least that's not obviously false, but it's not particularly insightful, and it's certainly not a reason we should value rhetoric. Most people at some point in their lives pick their nose, some better than others, and it's certainly a skill that can be developed, but that's certainly not a defense of nose picking.

samatman 2y ago
> Aristotle believed that women have fewer teeth So you haven't read Aristotle, you've read about Aristotle. Many such cases. I didn't recommend Aristotle without qualifications. I recommended Rhetoric. It's a stack of hundred dollar bills just sitting on the sidewalk, which you can pick up any time you want. If you'd rather feel superior to someone from the ancient world, because you were taught things he didn't know (and own none of that insight yourself), rather than gittin gud, that's up to you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > So you haven't read Aristotle, you've read about Aristotle. Incorrect. It's just easier to explain why the teeth thing is wrong than to explain why, for example, Aristotelian ethics is an ex-post-facto justification for slavery. > It's a stack of hundred dollar bills just sitting on the sidewalk, which you can pick up any time you want. If we're exchanging rhetorical blows instead of any sort of logic, then I'll note that when you pick the bills up they have Jesus' face on them instead of Benjamin Franklin's, and the back is religious proselytizing. It's a good idea to pick it up, but only so that you can dispose of the litter properly. > If you'd rather feel superior to someone from the ancient world, because you were taught things he didn't know (and own none of that insight yourself), rather than gittin gud, that's up to you. Nice ad hominem, but I don't feel superior to him. In his situation I likely would have made many of the same mistakes, in addition to a few mistakes all my own. That doesn't mean we need to pretend they weren't mistakes. I'm less concerned with the ownership of ideas and more concerned with whether those ideas are true and/or useful. The fact that Aristotle was given very little foundational knowledge on which to build his ideas is all the more reason to ignore his foundation-less ideas. > You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. How confident are you that you aren't the horse in this metaphor?