Re: Re[4]: THE RHETORICAL THEORY

Darlene Sybert (c557506@SHOWME.MISSOURI.EDU)
Tue, 6 Aug 1996 18:47:04 -0500


Eric Crump said:> >
> >Viewed from the right distance, belief and reason not only co-exist, they
> > begin to inhabit the same space, becoming almost indistinguishable.
> >
Steve Krause said
>
> Nope, and I think there are two reasons for this. First, it isn't possible
> to offer "counter-arguments" to religious texts. We can argue about (for

why?

> You can't really do that with religions because different faiths (and that
> word choice should signal somethin') all presume with the assumption that
> they're right

And just because they think they are right, no one can argue
with them?
>
> The second is based on a pretty basic rhetorical principal advanced by our
> pal Chaim Perleman: before a rhetor can persuade an audience, the rhetor
> must begin with a persumption that the audience agrees with, and if the
> rhetor chooses to make an appeal that is not presumed by the audience, it
> won't work.

He said that is where you begin...with something you can
reasonably presume that your audience agrees with...
It's not where you end, though, or why speak?

Darlene Sybert
http://www.missouri.edu/~c557506/index.htl
University of Missouri at Columbia (English)
******************************************************************************
A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:
It's loveliness increases; it will never
Pass into nothingness; but still will keep
A bower quiet for us, and a sleep
Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.
-John Keats "Endymion"
******************************************************************************