Location

Brock University

Document Type

Paper

Start Date

15-5-1997 9:00 AM

End Date

17-5-1997 5:00 PM

Abstract

The rhetoric of logic reveals, we claim, that arguments are about force, ending only when one side submits. Rhetoricians, it is countered, are content to persuade, settling for agreement when truth is wanted—and all is fair in pursuit of consent. The choice between conceptual rape and seduction is a false choice. It is time to cut against the grain. We are distracted by the rhetoric of logic and gloss the logic of rhetoric. Rhetorical models for pluralistic discourses are vital, but fail as regulative ideals. The ideology of logic's rhetoric is unacceptable, but it is not immutable—so there may be a way out.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Response to Submission

Michael Leff, Commentary on Cohen

Reader's Reactions

Michael Leff, Commentary on Cohen (May 1997)

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS
 
May 15th, 9:00 AM May 17th, 5:00 PM

The Argument Against Rhetoric

Brock University

The rhetoric of logic reveals, we claim, that arguments are about force, ending only when one side submits. Rhetoricians, it is countered, are content to persuade, settling for agreement when truth is wanted—and all is fair in pursuit of consent. The choice between conceptual rape and seduction is a false choice. It is time to cut against the grain. We are distracted by the rhetoric of logic and gloss the logic of rhetoric. Rhetorical models for pluralistic discourses are vital, but fail as regulative ideals. The ideology of logic's rhetoric is unacceptable, but it is not immutable—so there may be a way out.