QuoteSocrates: The fact is, as we said at the beginning of our discussion, that the aspiring speaker needs no knowledge of the truth about what is right or good... In courts of justice no attention is paid whatever to the truth about such topics; all that matters is plausibility... There are even some occasions when both prosecution and defence should positively suppress the facts in favor of probability, if the facts are improbable. Never mind the truth -- pursue probability through thick and thin in every kind of speech; the whole secret of the art of speaking lies in consistent adherence to this principle. Phaedrus: That is what those who claim to be professional teachers of rhetoric actually say, Socrates. Plato, Phaedrus (272)

QuoteOriginally posted by: Hamilton<blockquote>Quote<hr>Socrates: The fact is, as we said at the beginning of our discussion, that the aspiring speaker needs no knowledge of the truth about what is right or good... In courts of justice no attention is paid whatever to the truth about such topics; all that matters is plausibility... There are even some occasions when both prosecution and defence should positively suppress the facts in favor of probability, if the facts are improbable. Never mind the truth -- pursue probability through thick and thin in every kind of speech; the whole secret of the art of speaking lies in consistent adherence to this principle. Phaedrus: That is what those who claim to be professional teachers of rhetoric actually say, Socrates. <hr></blockquote><b>Plato, Phaedrus (272)</b>Wouldn't Rhetoric without regard for the Facts be unethical? - Further, wouldn't the most skillfull use of Rhetoric occur when Facts are presented in their entirety, and despite presenting all the facts, the speaker still succeeds in persuading the audience to accept his views? - or is rhetoric so limited in its scope that it can work only by suppressing inconvenient facts? Certain facts would be irrelevant to the discussion, and these may be disregarded - however ignoring facts due to irrelevance is quite different from a deliberate suppression of relevant facts. Given an issue, I would presume that most unbiased participants would broadly agree on which facts are relevant and which aren't, although there would be differing opinions on the relative importance of the facts.

Rhetoric is a skill. Shooting a rifle is a skill. You don't need ethics to acquire either skill. However, from a societal point of view it may be wise to restrict the circumstances in which these skills can be practised. This is why most countries require licences for rifles and insist upon ethical standards for (e.g.) lawyers. But the ethics and the skills are quite separate things.

or is rhetoric so limited in its scope that it can work only by suppressing inconvenient facts? The battle of Socrates, Plato & Aristotle was against the Sophists. In effect, when it came to Rhetoric and Dialectic, the Sophists of the day were saying that you could argue out of both sides of your mouth.If you read Aristotle's Rhetoric, you will find that he most certainly doesn't hold the same view of Rhetoric as do the Sophists.

As a further note, a disciplined study of Rhetoric and Oratory [aided by study and translation of Greek and Latin works] would turn a talented disciple into a truly formidable lawyer, orator or politician.

QuoteOriginally posted by: HamiltonThere are even some occasions when both prosecution and defence should positively suppress the facts in favor of probability, if the facts are improbable. Never mind the truth -- pursue probability through thick and thin in every kind of speech; the whole secret of the art of speaking lies in consistent adherence to this principle.This almost strikes me as the perfect definition of the "science of derivatives pricing" that I am pursuing in another thread- "Never mind the reality of the underlying process, you may even bracket it, just pursue probability through the consistent relation between derivatives prices."(Actually, "risk-neutral probability" - which is to my mind the generalisation of the concept of Probability, much in the same way as markets are the generalisation of reality - is just another word for "consistent & arbitrage-free relation between derivatives prices").- "In other words, the science of derivatives pricing is like the science of speech, rhetorical not really theoretical, and even less so, metaphysical (in the sense of "narrow and truthful correspondance with the facts").Thank you, Hamilton.

So, to my mind, Rhetoric is not an alteration or a perversion, or just a minor side of Reality.Rhetoric is the generalisation of Reality.For Rhetoric is the ultimate claim of self-consistency for a Philosophy of Meaning, and the Philosophy of Meaning is the "first philosophy" or, if you will, the only valid metaphysics.

For Rhetoric is the ultimate claim of self-consistence for a Philosophy of Meaning, and the Philosophy of Meaning is the "first philosophy" or, if you will, the only valid metaphysics. If Rhetoric is the ultimate claim and Rhetoric is made up of words, then Rhetoric must be made up of The Word; and if Aristotle and Aquinas agree that the ultimate goal of Rhetoric is the pursuit of Truth and the Truth is Good; and Aristotle agrees that the pursuit of happiness is the ultimate human good; then....

QuoteAristotle agrees that the pursuit of happiness is the ultimate human goodHamilton,For reasons independent of the present thread, today is the happiest day of my life ("a life in meanings," as Cassirer would say).Quotethen...... then, following you, and following my present inclination, Rhetoric today has the name of a woman.