Reason or Rhetoric?

[Bleid]

I made this thread with the intention of seeing what the rest of you consider to be more valuable to the individual in society. I will first present a light basis for this discussion:

Reason is the aim of logic and logicians. Reason is when we critically think about ideas and come to inferences about the world around us and the ideas and concepts we learn about within it. Reason allows us to argue validly and rationally, and identify when others are not doing so. When I mention reason, I am not talking about what makes sense to you as an individual or what some people would consider rational. I am talking about actual, taught-in-college, logic. The actual facts about what constitutes sensible reasoning over irrational reasoning.

Example of a logically valid argument:

If it rained, then the sidewalk is wet.
The sidewalk is not wet.
Therefore, it didn't rain.

_____________________________________________________

Rhetoric is the aim of the persuasive and the rhetorical. Rhetoric is when we aim to persuade those around us to believe what we want them to by the manner with which we present information or how we explain it to them. Rhetoric allows us to argue speciously, but convincingly. When I mention rhetoric, I am talking about writing or speaking with expressed intent on persuasion rather than actually presenting factual, logical reason.

Example of a logically invalid, but possibly persuasive argument:

John has a Ph. D in biology.
Joe has no degree in biology.
John and Joe have a disagreement regarding biology.
John is more likely to be correct than Joe is.

Now, of course, reason and rhetoric often do mix with one another and when they do, they're very powerful in discourse.

But without use of the other, which of the two do you find to be more valuable on its own to the individual - the art of persuasion, or the art of correctness?

[Miserabilia]

Well it seems most logical that reason is what we rely on in science, etc.
But I think rhetorics are more important because we need them to actualy interchange ideas as humans.
Hope you get what I mean /:

[Hudor]

Rhetoric has usually been more useful and thus more valuable to me.

[Vlerchan]

In general, I've found that people are more responsive to rhetoric than reason.

Which is unfortunate.

[Gamma Male]

In general, I've found that people are more responsive to rhetoric than reason.

Which is unfortunate.

Agree.


Of course it would be wonderful if everyone able to grasp and understand logical arguments as easily as emotion filled rants and speeches, but while human beings may have strong reasoning powers compared to other species, ultimately our instinct to react based on emotions like fear and anger are stronger than our instincts to react logically and rationally.

That's the case most of the time at least. I'd like to think a proper upbringing is usually able to override these instincts. Being taught how to react to anger properly, being taught how to use and apply proper reasoning, etc.

Of course other times people are born who just naturally rely on reasoning more than emotion. (I'm sure there's some very interesting neurological explanation for it which I know nothing about.)

[Bleid]

Well it seems most logical that reason is what we rely on in science, etc.
But I think rhetorics are more important because we need them to actualy interchange ideas as humans.
Hope you get what I mean /:

Yes, certainly. I understand.

Would you consider rhetoric to still be used when we're talking about, say, the work of mathematicians whom use proofs to convince one another? Yes, it is still the work of reasoning that is involved in the proof, but is the proof itself the mathematician's version of rhetoric, and should be considered part of the art of persuasion? Perhaps logic is simply the rational man's best form of rhetoric, as it appeals to their predisposition to only accept justifiable claims.

Rhetoric is and has always been more useful and thus valuable to me.

Oh, a very decisive answer for rhetoric. What are some examples of where it's been especially valuable to you?

In general, I've found that people are more responsive to rhetoric than reason.

Which is unfortunate.

I've seen similar.

Agree.

Of course it would be wonderful if everyone able to grasp and understand logical arguments as easily as emotion filled rants and speeches, but while human beings may have strong reasoning powers compared to other species, ultimately our instinct to react based on emotions like fear and anger are stronger than our instincts to react logically and rationally.

That's the case most of the time at least. I'd like to think a proper upbringing is usually able to override these instincts. Being taught how to react to anger properly, being taught how to use and apply proper reasoning, etc.

Of course other times people are born who just naturally rely on reasoning more than emotion. (I'm sure there's some very interesting neurological explanation for it which I know nothing about.)

Perhaps some part of that neurological explanation has to do with conditioning during upbringing, as well.

For example, if we were to consider a hypothetical situation where someone had no human interaction outside of his friends, all of whom happened to be philosophers or mathematicians - this person would, almost by a natural selection process, become more interested in mathematics and philosophy than they otherwise would, due to a sort of peer pressure, and more than likely grow to enjoy those topics.

Just the same way that kids who otherwise would be good can grow up around delinquents and become as such.

[Hudor]

Oh, a very decisive answer for rhetoric. What are some examples of where it's been especially valuable to you?


I'll give you some instances.

A girl lost her boyfriend in a road accident the day they were going to be married when a drunk truck driver smashed his car to pulp. She was unreasonable and hysteric and the only way I could comfort her was rhetoric.

One of my friends failed in an exam and was very depressed. It was a fact he hadn't studied well and therefore it was his fault but he knew it and if I had stated it to him he would have felt irritated and I would have aggravated the situation. So i opted for rhetoric to motivate him.

These are some recent ones.

Rhetoric appeals to me more than reason but on a relative and not an absolute basis because i have found it more useful on various occasions since a lot of people feel before they think.

[Ben_Frost]

Both are needed, but staying within the boundaries provided in this topic, from personal experience I've seen much more results with Rhetoric, most people only want to be convinced than to be shown actual facts. Even in a scientific community you'll see lots of people who only believe what you say because you've convinced them, which as another user has already stated: is unfortunate.

[Miserabilia]

Yes, certainly. I understand.

Would you consider rhetoric to still be used when we're talking about, say, the work of mathematicians whom use proofs to convince one another? Yes, it is still the work of reasoning that is involved in the proof, but is the proof itself the mathematician's version of rhetoric, and should be considered part of the art of persuasion? Perhaps logic is simply the rational man's best form of rhetoric, as it appeals to their predisposition to only accept justifiable claims.



I think math itself does not need any rhetoric but in order to transfer it from one person to the other needs rhetorics;
a person can proof something mathemetical to themselves without rhetorics because math is, well, it's own little world.
I do think it's impossible to make an idea understandable to the other without some form of rhetorics.

[Lovelife090994]

Why not have both? When one has reason and rhetoric paired with sense and experience then they have wisdom. One needs all five. Reason, rhetoric, sense, experience, and wisdom. Like imagine dreamers versus realists, the world needs both.

[Bleid]

I think math itself does not need any rhetoric but in order to transfer it from one person to the other needs rhetorics;
a person can proof something mathemetical to themselves without rhetorics because math is, well, it's own little world.
I do think it's impossible to make an idea understandable to the other without some form of rhetorics.

Fair enough. I can see that.

I'll give you some instances.

A girl lost her boyfriend in a road accident the day they were going to be married when a drunk truck driver smashed his car to pulp. She was unreasonable and hysteric and the only way I could comfort her was rhetoric.

One of my friends failed in an exam and was very depressed. It was a fact he hadn't studied well and therefore it was his fault but he knew it and if I had stated it to him he would have felt irritated and I would have aggravated the situation. So i opted for rhetoric to motivate him.

These are some recent ones.

Rhetoric appeals to me more than reason but on a relative and not an absolute basis because i have found it more useful on various occasions since a lot of people feel before they think.


I understand. I'd agree - feeling does usually tend to take place before rationality.

Both are needed, but staying within the boundaries provided in this topic, from personal experience I've seen much more results with Rhetoric, most people only want to be convinced than to be shown actual facts. Even in a scientific community you'll see lots of people who only believe what you say because you've convinced them, which as another user has already stated: is unfortunate.

Mhm. Yes, certainly. Both are very much needed.

Why not have both? When one has reason and rhetoric paired with sense and experience then they have wisdom. One needs all five. Reason, rhetoric, sense, experience, and wisdom. Like imagine dreamers versus realists, the world needs both.

Of course!