(no subject)

[fictional]

I wonder sometimes if all my interpersonal problems can be addressed through academia. Have just spent a few hours reading Lorenzo Valla's De Falso Credita et Ementita Constantini Donatione Declamatio and have been thinking about the difference between rhetoric and dialectic.
If rhetoric is persuadability, on whatever front, and dialectic is the emendation of knowledge - then perhaps, my failure is that of rhetoric - I argue people into a corner, but fail somehow to persuade them of my inherent rightness? They are left without a leg to stand on, but somehow, they still don't believe what I am saying?

Although, my father shares this characteristic with me, and his rhetoric is generally just as overpowering as his arguement - and yet still, while my mouth may be stopped, to be convinced is something else entirely.

In other news, have picked up Elizabeth Hand's Mortal Love from the library, and am happy. Or will be, when I get a quiet space of time to sit and read a bit. I think it will suit my kinks down to the ground. (Thanks to patashoqua for the rec.)

Comments

[askeladden.livejournal.com]

Hope you don't find the question insulting, but have you read the Gorgias (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.html)?

Catamites!

[kalichan.livejournal.com]

I have indeed, but I've got major issues with it.
First off, I don't believe in Socrates, or at least not Plato's Socrates. Second of all I think it's pretty budget to be pretending to encourage the dialectic of it all, but actually since you're writing both sides of the arguement, to put less good words in the mouths of your (fictional)opponents. It seems all disingenuous-like to me.

Poor Callicles. I'm all about the scratching, myself. And I would not be happy whilst being tortured to death, regardless of what anyone said, Greek or no.

[hofnarr.livejournal.com]

It might have to do with the difference between convincing someone you're right, and convincing them they're wrong. Most people don't want to be wrong, and have a knee jerk reaction to never believe that they are. So the trick is to convince them you're right without making them realize that they are then wrong. If all you do is back them into a corner and take their legs out from underneath them they're going to remain convinced that they're right, but you're a better debater. Which is total bullshit and further proof that the human race should be annihilated for being losers.

[kalichan.livejournal.com]

See, as I see it there's: Triumph of logic; triumph of rhetoric, where you overwhelm people with the force of your personality, and artistry, but then, there must be this third thing, that actually convinces people of what you want them to believe. Nothing else can explain the current state of our government today. I just want to isolate what that thing is...

...and then possibly try and rule the world.