Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

UNDERSTANDING SELF AND OTHERS IN THE POSTMODERN WORLD

AuthorHouse

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..........................................................ixPREFACE..................................................................xi1. Introduction to Philosophic Rhetoric..................................12. The Homeric Worldview: The Gods and The Greeks........................333. The Sophistic Worldview and The Platonic Response.....................584. Plato's Worldview.....................................................1015. The Christian Worldview...............................................1596. Humanism and The Culture of the West..................................1927. The Scientific Worldview..............................................2078. Postmodernism.........................................................2489. Conclusion............................................................289BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................303SELECTED READINGS........................................................313GENERAL INDEX............................................................317

Chapter One

Getting at the truth of matters that affect one's well-being and happiness is everybody's business.

Assumptions, Definitions and Observations

The author does not claim originality in his use of the term "Philosophic Rhetoric." He owes the ideas he has on it to Plato, who dismissing rhetoric as "cookery" in the Gorgias, seemed to link them together in the Phaedrus. Secondly, he is indebted to Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird who employed the ethical, truth, artistic, and results standards as a method of criticism that leads to rational judgments concerning the relative merits of speeches. (1) The philosophic part of Philosophic Rhetoric includes the ethical and truth standards. The rhetorical part is concerned with the artistic and results standards which assess how affective a message is in getting its auditors to believe in and act upon the speaker's proposals. Conceived in this way, Philosophic Rhetoric pre-supposes the existence of an objective reality, and a mind capable of knowing it. The former is concerned with ontology, the latter with epistemology. Thus, there are necessarily objective and subjective dimensions in all truth claims.

The rhetor, as philosopher, employs dialectic and the scientific method (method of hypothesis) in his efforts to apprehend the truth about "What Is" in the realm of being on the one side; and "What Is" in the world of matter/nature on the other. The philosopher, as rhetor, employs rhetoric in his efforts to make that which he has apprehended knowable to himself, and believable, and actionable to others. The claim this essay makes is that we are all philosophical rhetoricians because human nature compels us to seek the truth about ourselves, the people we live with, and the world in which we live. The uses of dialectic and the scientific method are well-known to most people. The uses of rhetoric are not well-known, and when used is done often in a negative or derisive manner. So what Rhetoric is, does, and proposes to accomplish must be considered first.

Donald Bryant, a contemporary rhetorician, defines rhetoric as "... the rationale of informative and suasory discourse." (2) Everett Lee Hunt claims: "Rhetoric is the study of men persuading men to make free choices." (3) Aristotle described rhetoric as "... the art of discovering in the particular case, what are the available means of persuasion." (4) He did not feel a need to define persuasion as he felt everyone knew when they were being persuaded. Fotheringham, a behavioral psychologist, provides a workable definition. He writes: "... persuasion is conceived as that body of effects ..." achieved "... in receivers, relevant and instrumental to source-desired goals, brought about by a process in which messages have been a major determinant of those effects ... is interpersonal and involves the perception of choice." (5) He explains, what Aristotle assumed, that persuasion is only one means of influence. Other means he identifies for securing "compliance" with a source's message are: force, bribery, authority, and interpersonal roles. Messages may be associated with these means of influence, he observes, but if compliance is achieved due to the perception of injury associated with its rejection, force has been used; if the perception of reward generates compliance, the auditor has been bribed; and if a person complies because it is the law, the behavior has been legislated. Further, when auditors comply because they recognize a source in a situation has the right to direct their behavior; interpersonal roles produces the compliance, as when a student accepts the right of the professor to lecture, give examinations, and assign grades. These means of influence are part of the culture of the Western World. Persuasion is the most desirable means of influence for two reasons: it is available to everyone; and the persuaded person continues in the desired behavior because he subjectively "perceives" he has freely chosen to do so. The powerful and wealthy seem more likely to utilize force and bribery. As we hold them accountable for the things they say and do; we also hold persuaders responsible for messages they utter and the results they achieve.

From the standpoint of Philosophic Rhetoric responsible speakers and writers must know three things if they are not to inflict injury upon their auditors. First, they must have self-knowledge; second, they must know what is really good for their auditors; and third, they must speak the truth about the issues they address. The two exhortations carved on the walls of the temple" dedicated to Apollo at Delphi, cited above, "Know Thyself," and "Nothing too Much," Walter F. Otto writes, mean "know what man is, and how great is the interval which separates him from the greatness of the eternal gods; consider the limitations of humanity." (6)

Weaver asserts: "We are all of us preachers in private or public capacities. We have no sooner uttered words than we have given impulse to other people to look at the world, or some small part of it, in our way." (7) "When all factors have been considered," he observes, "it will be seen that men are born rhetoricians...." (8) This means the speaker must become aware of how his family, education, professional activities, personal history, significant events in his life, and his own system of values have formed a filter through which he views himself, his auditors, and the issues he considers. Lacking this kind of self-knowledge, he will—whether he is an educator, clergyman, therapist, analyst, or friend—impose his worldview and his personal biases upon his auditor, client or friend.

Secondly, since messages are focused "... upon accomplishing something predetermined and directional with an audience...." the responsible speaker must know what really contributes to the well-being of his auditors, and those things that might injure them. (9) His message must always urge his auditors to embrace the good over the evil; the greater good over the lesser; and the lesser of the evils over the greater. It is not that people cannot be deceived nor urged to foolish action; but that the ethical speaker should not subject his auditors to such deception and manipulation. (10)

The initial focus of Philosophic Rhetoric is upon the speaker/writer/ source. The second is upon the audience....