So I reckon that rhetorical questions are an invalid language construct, because it's effectiveness relies upon the breaking of a fundamental code of language: that questions are a request for a response. — Serving Zion
From the pov of 'the committee nature of self', such questions are aspects of internal dialogue. — fresco
Your post seems like a rhetorical declarative sentence: you asked no question, but you're expecting an answer.I say "That's not a rhetorical question" sometimes because I realize that it might be taken to be a rhetorical question, but it's something I'm actually looking for a response/an answer to. — Terrapin Station
Was he?Your post seems like a rhetorical declarative sentence: you asked no question, but you're expecting an answer. — Relativist
I reckon that rhetorical questions are an invalid language construct, — Serving Zion
I had to Google "committee nature of self" and then I realised that he is sharing an insight into the nature of deliberations, so it immediately made better sense to read that he was referring to my question as "such questions" because I really am "thinking out loud" .. but then I saw how it could just as well be said of those who use the rhetorical question. So it made me think, I found it to be true, and I liked it too :)I don't know what "the committee nature of self" is, — T Clark
That idea seems pretty accurate, but in order that the question delivers rhetoric and doesn't tempt the hearer to oppose the speaker, it relies upon the hearer agreeing with the speaker's own answer.I like the idea of a rhetorical question being one the speaker is suggesting listeners ask themselves. — T Clark
Well, it is only a part of language that happens to be in discussion here today. There are more important considerations to functional communication, than the proper use of language.Languge is for us and we get to use it how we collectively like and even, often, how we individually like. It's cool that it sounds like a question, but it's not. That is making the point in a different way that via statements, since it is, essentially a statemen in question form. There is no one to give us a ticket for breaking a supposed rule. We get to play with the forms we have created and it's great we do. If some guy kept trying rhetorical questions and did them clearly, but no one understood, well, that would be too bad. But we generally do understand and so it's fine. It's our language. — Coben
So I said this in passing on the weekend, while discussing scripture: "it's not just a rhetorical question, you know".
And today I'm still thinking about it.
I have believed that every question deserves an answer. So how can I be right if rhetorical questions demand no answer? — Serving Zion
A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer.[Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion or at least draw an acknowledgement that the listener understands the intended message. — Wikipedia - Rhetorical question
Yes, I did say it in passing, but also yes I did have a particular point to make (that was quite a bit larger). She had quoted the scripture and I said "that's not just a rhetorical question, you know" .. so I was saying that she was not handling the scripture as it is intended, by using a question that invites an answer as though it should not be "reasoned with" (Isaiah 1:18). But while I could remember the details of the conversation yesterday, today it has slipped my mind. I just trust that if it becomes necessary to explain, those details will come back to me, because it is certainly in there but there seems to be something blocking it :)Are you sure you said it 'in passing' ? It sounds like you had a point to make about a particular passage but didn't want to, or couldn't, spend too much time on it. Can you remember the piece ? — Amity
Charlie Brown rhetorically: ' Who's to say what is right and wrong here?'
Lucy responds: 'I will'. — Amity
Charlie Brown rhetorically: ' Who's to say what is right and wrong here?'
Lucy responds: 'I will'.
— Amity
That is precisely what I love about children! .. there really is nothing in their nature that stops them doing what is straightforward and (seemingly) right! — Serving Zion
She had quoted the scripture and I said "that's not just a rhetorical question, you know" .. so I was saying that she was not handling the scripture as it is intended, by using a question that invites an answer as though it should not be "reasoned with" (Isaiah 1:18). — Serving Zion
I did have a particular point to make (that was quite a bit larger). — Serving Zion
But while I could remember the details of the conversation yesterday, today it has slipped my mind. I just trust that if it becomes necessary to explain, those details will come back to me, because it is certainly in there but there seems to be something blocking it :) — Serving Zion
Evidently! :ok: That is why I say that rhetorical questions are risky, if the speaker's intention is to preach rather than to teach.However, it is not always straightforward - depending on who is asked and where the answers come from. — Amity
Bravo! (I shall take on board to at least generate a link in future, if it cannot be quoted. I understand the internal pressures that prevent one going to that effort when they have not a natural interest).Referencing scripture as a response - how helpful is that ? — Amity
Ok, nevermind what that sounds like then. Make of it what you will :)Sounds somewhat preachy. — Amity
Yes, at this time, that is true. I only remember the topic at large.So - are you saying you can't remember the point ? — Amity
I am sorry, it just is not possible to furnish those details to you. It really does evade me at this time.While it is not necessary to explain, it might help to put your question in context.
What were the differences between you in 'handling the scripture as intended' ? — Amity
Rich words! .. I certainly did not intend to do that. I chose to respond only to what was necessary.However, all of this is a distraction from the rest of my post. — Amity
It has already been covered in prior material on this thread.What did you think of the content regarding 'the rhetorical question' ? — Amity
Do you understand why you are asking this question?Did it lead to an improved understanding? — Amity
Referencing scripture as a response - how helpful is that ?
— Amity
Bravo! (I shall take on board to at least generate a link in future, if it cannot be quoted. I understand the internal pressures that prevent one going to that effort when they have not a natural interest).
Sounds somewhat preachy.
— Amity
Ok, nevermind what that sounds like then. Make of it what you will :) — Serving Zion
It is when you say "It's cool that it sounds like a question, but it's not.", that you appear to be saying that though being framed as a question, the expectation is that it does not invite the hearer to respond. That is a most common use of rhetorical questions.I don't know where you found anything in my post that says you can't challenge the use of rhetorical questions. — Coben
Yes, that is the problem, essentially. A civilised dialogue provides turns for each party to speak. A question is, by nature, an invitation for the other party to speak. But a rhetorical question does not intend to provide that invitation, because as you have said, it is not a question, it is a statement.If you think disagreement means you the other person thinks you can't challenge a belief or opinion they have, you are going to feel that people are trying to control you all the time. — Coben
That is exactly why I said Bravo!You make wrong assumptions. Bravo ! — Amity
Yes, I have a subtle sense of humour ;)Well, on the scale of stupidity, from Kanye to Einstein, I would give it a stupidity rating of... oh, wait, that was a rhetorical question. I see what you did there. — S
It is when you say "It's cool that it sounds like a question, but it's not.", that you appear to be saying that though being framed as a question, the expectation is that it does not invite the hearer to respond. That is a most common use of rhetorical questions. — Serving Zion
But that doesn't mean you don't get to speak. It just means that the person is not using the question to have to answer it. But of course you can speak in response. If you think what they think is a rhetorical question actually has an answer that is not the one they consider so obvious. Or you could disagree with its application. Or you could jump back into the previous parts of the issue and comment there.Yes, that is the problem, essentially. A civilised dialogue provides turns for each party to speak. A question is, by nature, an invitation for the other party to speak. But a rhetorical question does not intend to provide that invitation, because as you have said, it is not a question, it is a statement. — Serving Zion
Of course there can be poor uses of any rhetorical tool. I don't think that means the tool is invalid in general.That is what the essential problem is, in what I have found.
The example I gave from James 4:12 explains that although the question is rhetorical, it is not confounded by a hearer interjecting to answer it, because the fundamental principle of the rhetorical question, is that it "must lead to a single robust conclusion, and that must agree with the speaker's expectation" - and the example from Charlie Brown did not do that, so therefore it confounded the speaker. Therefore, the rhetorical question in the Charlie Brown cartoon is not truly valid as a rhetorical question, because there is a valid answer to it that the speaker did not expect. He fell victim to that "risk" I have mentioned. — Serving Zion
I'd rephrase that then, to be more generally accurate. A question is, by nature, asking for assistance to find an answer. In the example you gave of Shakespeare, "How do I love thee?", he is searching to understand something, and though not inviting the response of the one whom he is addressing, it fits well with observations about @fresco's idea:A question, you say, is by nautre and invitation for the other person to speak. Well, not always. — Coben
From the pov of 'the committee nature of self', such questions are aspects of internal dialogue. — fresco
he is sharing an insight into the nature of deliberations — Serving Zion
I agree, in all seriousness, that it would have been more helpful if you had seen the scripture. That I merely referenced it, is not sufficient for the purpose. — Serving Zion
I shall take on board to at least generate a link in future, if it cannot be quoted. I understand the internal pressures that prevent one going to that effort when they have not a natural interest). — Serving Zion
I think that is the real crux of my investigation: whether the hearer has the right to respond 'out-of-turn' as it would be, and if we consider that rhetorical questions are not to be answered, then it seems to be an oppression of sorts upon a hearer (where I am being a righteous judge of the hearer's right to be heard). — Serving Zion
I did address this and other issues, not just the Shakespeare, in the previous post. (It was actually Browning and I fixed that error).The risk of a poorly formed (ie: fake) rhetorical question, is that the hearer who does not arrive at the same conclusion as the speaker, is compelled (and entitled) to interject and detract from the speaker's statement (and, subsequent authority to speak). — Serving Zion
I think you're making too much out of this, — T Clark
So I reckon that rhetorical questions are an invalid language construct, because it's effectiveness relies upon the breaking of a fundamental code of language: that questions are a request for a response. — Serving Zion
I don't believe I was wrong to assume so. It was the obvious explanation for why you would object to the action of referencing rather than asking for an explanation.You wrongly assumed I did not Google the reference. — Amity
True enough, yet I do understand the internal pressures that impede us from going where others desire to lead us. I have years of experience in these matters. Even when I provide links, there are some people who, being prejudiced against the value of scripture, will simply not click it. For your information, I once was a person who, despite others copy/pasting right into the page for me, would not even look at it - with as much skill as I am able to read a newspaper without seeing the advertisements. So it equips me with experience to understand how such behaviours, regrettable though they may be, in fact can and do occur.It takes no real effort, even if there is not a natural interest. — Amity
Speculative reasoning. Let me know if you need more information to help with that.Or perhaps this was a 'wrong assumption' which was intentionally placed and carefully played. — Amity
You have a predisposition to oppose the use of scripture, because you think it is "preachy" and that appears to be a despicable practice in your opinion.What 'internal pressures' did you think you understood as being a block to any effort ? — Amity
Alright. Well, as I said, make of it what you will. I had remembered that scripture because it shows God invites reasoning and that is contrary to the spirit that produces views such as what I was addressing on Sunday, and that interprets questions as having rhetorical value without first answering the question. I thought you might rather benefit by that perspective.It is easy to find Isaiah 1:18 or any scriptural reference. Not so easy to see the relevance here. — Amity
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.