Why "survive"?

Because it's binding, a decision that will help one live on; either physically or through a legacy.

Yes I would agree. Self interest is key, and you can look at it conversely - who would agree with something that is of no benefit to them, or that causes them pain?

who would agree with something that is of no benefit to them, or that causes them pain? — Pop

Well, how about surgery? No one likes to be cut open, but it's for our own good.

I think that "or" should be an "and".

.

Self interest is key — Pop

Although I agree, I fear this can be misinterpreted as egotism or narcissism. What do you mean by "self-interest?"

I think that "or" should be an "and". — dussias

Maybe and / or.

What do you mean by "self-interest?" — dussias

Of benefit to them, and not harm them.

I think we are fundamentally wired to avoid pain and seek pleasure. Although we often incur pain for a higher good - kids being a prime example. :angry:

The ultimate result of the technique of persuasion and rhetoric is whether the person you are trying to convince actually buys the product you are trying to sell...

Many animals, humans especially, will put up with short-term discomfort and pain if there is a longterm perceived benefit.

:up:

Not sure if that’s really a technique, as such. How would you ‘make’ someone learn something? By employing persuasion and rhetoric?

The way I see it, the ultimate technique in persuasion and rhetoric is in eliciting both effort and attention in the other towards aligning conceptual structures. You can’t make someone else learn something if they don’t want to, or if it takes too much effort.

As Hitch would say, “Go ninety. Whatever you’re doing, just go ninety and let the other person come ten.”

In other words, meet them where they’re at.

Making someone say to itself:

This is important and will help me survive.

is the expressway into agreement and engagement. — dussias

To tell you the truth, calligraphy evolved only after the basics of writing was mastered. Rhetoric is an embellishment, a decorative touch, added to written/spoken words in order to evoke a positive response by virtue of its aesthetic qualities. While the value of rhetoric can't be underestimated in debate, one should also be wary of its power of "empty persuasion" and by that I mean rhetoric can move hearts and change minds even when there's no real substance to what is being said or written.

making the other learn something.

Making someone say to itself:

This is important and will help me survive.

is the expressway into agreement and engagement.

What do you think? — dussias

A fortiori, I would say that the ultimate technique in persuasion is being demonstrably well-informed. Which (theoretically) should allow one to convey the exigency you describe.

Dussias, I support what you are getting at with respect to the self interest component...it is much easier to get someone to buy into, or agree, or be persuaded, if there is clearly something for them to gain (or some negative outcome to be avoided).

However, I think this may be a bit oversimplified. What about the person who you are able to persuade that something against their interests is the right thing to do? For example, convincing a person who committed a very bad crime to turn themselves in.

Or the person who is persuaded to testify against someone even though their life is at risk? I suppose you could argue doing the right thing is more important to the person than the negative outcomes, and is therefore in their self-interest? That may be difficult to agree with if the person is then murdered.

People do the things in both of these examples.

Or what about convincing a person they should lie, against their strong belief lying is bad, in order to save someone's life?

If what you are seeking to do is persuade or to win someone over with rhetoric, I believe each situation must be examined contextually. It may not simply be a matter of something that will help them survive.

I would not refer to the particular need of survival. We do not really think on survival terms, rather, we think on what is good for us, in a self-interested kind of way. The best way to persuade someone is to appeal to their self-interest, creating the illusion that there is something on it for them as well

Of benefit to them, and not harm them. — Pop

Agree.

You can’t make someone else learn something if they don’t want to, or if it takes too much effort. — Possibility

How did you learn about E=mc² ?

Did you read about it in a book? Or do people just go around repeating it? You most likely know the basics of what it means, but you do not question whether it is important. You just accept it.

And understanding it certainly is important for the survival of humans.



Understood. Let's not say rhetoric. Thank you, you taught me something!

being demonstrably well-informed — Pantagruel

What about "fake news"? We're actively questioning sources whose purpose is akin to being well-informed.

convincing a person who committed a very bad crime to turn themselves in. — Sherry

Here the solution is to convince the criminal that its life will without a doubt improve if they comply. But in practice, this is near impossible to guarantee. If they don't care about surviving and are all-out violent, I think we would agree that this person is a psychopath.

But I do like your point of view. Achieving this level of persuasion in those cases (which are extremely common) is practically impossible.

what is good for us, in a self-interested kind of way. The best way to persuade someone is to appeal to their self-interest, creating the illusion that there is something on it — Alejandro

I'll agree that maybe these are all illusions, either built by others or by ourselves.

I think that "what is good for us" is different from "that which helps us survive." This is what I mean:

You get to choose between shampoo, which is good for you, and me not shooting you in the head. Which do you prefer?

The ultimate way to persuade someone is to first understand where they are coming from, in other words, knowing something about their state of mind and the knowledge they already possess. Then, one has to create a link between that knowledge base and the idea you want to implant. An idea sits best in a mind if that mind can see how it links to existing ideas. Good teachers and effective salespeople do this.

Rhetoric is an embellishment, a decorative touch, added to written/spoken words in order to evoke a positive response by virtue of its aesthetic qualities. While the value of rhetoric can't be underestimated in debate, one should also be wary of its power of "empty persuasion" and by that I mean rhetoric can move hearts and change minds even when there's no real substance to what is being said or written. — TheMadFool

Yes, rhetoric can be overdone, but there's no possible way to avoid some of it so I would encourage people to use rhetorical effects at a small dose, and try and vary.

Whatever you do, you will always use some style of delivery or another, based usually on what you think is more effective to get your ideas across. Hence a form of rhetoric or another is always the case. Even a total avoidance of any rhetorical effects would in itself be a rhetorical effect, that says: "I'm better than these rhetors, I'm a (wo)man of substance."

being demonstrably well-informed
— Pantagruel

What about "fake news"? We're actively questioning sources whose purpose is akin to being well-informed. — dussias

What about it? Being well-informed implies being aware of the quality of your information sources. Anyone who is naive enough to believe that they are getting accurate information from a meme doesn't even know the meaning of the term well-informed.

I agree with you that the best starting point in philosophical debate and persuasion is understanding another's state of mind and their knowledge.
So much comes down to the other's psychology. Sometimes it can seem like a lost battle if the person wishes to hold onto beliefs which they believe serve them well, including fixed ideas stemming from religious belief or ideas they were brought up to believe. In particular, sometimes arguing against various prejudices can be laborious. I have heard my mum trying to argue against racism with some of her friends, as they sit there not wanting to know.
When we are trying to give knowledge based food for questioning and reflection, it is also worth suggesting benefits of rethinking ideas. Also, understanding the other's perspective fully including the positives of the view leads to a deeper engagement.
Also, it is worth examining why we wish to challenge others' ideas in the first place, so that it does not become a mere exercise to blot out one's own uncertainty or a game about winning an argument.

making the other learn something.

Making someone say to itself:

This is important and will help me survive.

is the expressway into agreement and engagement.

What do you think? — dussias

Persuasion is not based in learning, as the existence of deception demonstrates. To be persuaded into believing a falsity is not an instance of learning. And since it commonly occurs that one is persuaded to believe falsity, we cannot say that persuasion is based in learning. Therefore we must look for something else as the true basis of persuasion and rhetoric.

This fact is what Socrates and Plato exposed of the sophists. The sophists claimed that making the correct choice, doing what is right, is a knowledge based feature of human action. Knowing what is right would induce a person to choose the right action, and therefore virtue could be taught. In the terms of your op, we could say that the sophists asserted that if a person would learn what is right, then a person would be persuaded to do what is right. But Socrates demonstrated a disconnect between these two ideas, knowing what is right does not necessarily lead to the person doing what is right, as a person can choose to do what one knows is wrong. Because of the truth of this fundamental principle, we need to respect the fact that there is a fundamental separation between teaching/learning, and persuading. In no way can the two be equated.

Hopefully, persuasion should not be a hollow act but one of true learning, but in this chaotic age, with a multitude of beliefs, the wisest of our time can can lead pathways. Ultimately, it might not be about persuasion to definite belief, but if nothing else, may be about enabling us to think for ourselves, in the spirit of Socrates' call for an examined life.

You can’t make someone else learn something if they don’t want to, or if it takes too much effort.
— Possibility

How did you learn about E=mc² ?

Did you read about it in a book? Or do people just go around repeating it? You most likely know the basics of what it means, but you do not question whether it is important. You just accept it. — dussias

Ha - You obviously don’t know me very well, then.

Being able to repeat the formula does not mean you’ve learnt anything about it. For most people, all they know about it is that it’s important to what scientists do, which is important to them, so they believe the formula without wanting to learn what it means. Besides, it takes too much effort.

I’m not sure how this refutes my comment.

Being able to repeat the formula does not mean you’ve learnt anything about it — Possibility

The subject learned that the object is important, and that's enough for my argument.

----

Persuasion is not based in learning, — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course, I agree. They're not equal; hardly even similar.

Being well-informed implies being aware of the quality of your information sources. — Pantagruel

Agreed, but what I try to get across is the ultimate method or indicator of persuasion. False or erronous learning is still a type of learning, and I mean to include that.

Because it's binding, a decision that will help one live on; either physically or through a legacy. — dussias

And why is that what we ought do?

The ultimIate technique in persuasion and rethoric is...
listening.

That's kind of a combined and answer, taking ultimate as meaning most effective but also as meaning 'best' (morally, socially). If you listen you know the person you are trying to affect. YOu know there values and needs. You can tailor your message to them. You also engage them. People want and need to be heard and understood. You are also being changed, in front of them, up front before demanding change from them. If you really listen you are affected. You role model listening for them, then see if they listen. You connect rather than coming at them as some Newtonian impact (subtly or not).

Understood. Let's not say rhetoric. Thank you, you taught me something! — dussias

Here's something you might just find interesting. There are basically three kinds arguments one can make:

1. Deductive: the conclusion is necessarily true given the premises are true

2. Inductive: the conclusion is probably true given the premises are true

3 Abductive: arguments to the best explanation


Deductive arguments, although meant to be watertight, are weakened to the point of being completely useless by the problem of the Munchaussen trilemma.

Inductive arguments are by definition probabilistic and abductive arguments too are probabilistic.

No method of argument currently available can prove a given proposition with 100% certainty - doubt is an irremovable feature of all claims to knowledge.

In short, no argument ever guarantees the truth of its conclusion in a manner that is satisfactory.

Taking the above into consideration, trying to convince people with logical arguments alone is like trying to kill someone with a toy gun. No argument is so good that it can reduce the uncertainty in the conclusion to zero.

It's at this point in the art of convincing or disabusing an audience of certain beliefs that rhetoric steps onto the stage. Convincing people that certain beliefs are correct or not as the case may be is more about touching the right chords in the hearts of people with emotionally loaded language rather than appealing to their rationality with cold, impersonal arguments.

Contrary to my initial thoughts on the matter it seems that between stirring rhetoric and cold logic, rhetoric has the upper hand.

You have presented an argument as to what constitutes good rhetoric. As I said arguments don't work. Plus it looks, walks, and quacks like an argumentum ad baculum, quite far from using words that touch the heartstrings of the audience. You have to win hearts not strike fear.

False or erronous learning is still a type of learning, and I mean to include that. — dussias

Is it? Can you qualify that? Because as just that general statement I would have to disagree vigorously.

And why is that what we ought do? — Banno

Because we die and tend to want to live.

---

You connect rather than coming at them as some Newtonian impact — Coben

Haha, I like how you put it. I agree. Listening is always there.

---

Inductive arguments are by definition probabilistic — TheMadFool

I wouldn't say probabilistic. In logic, you can also prove by induction. In that case (if not all) the proof is based on a hypothesis, not a probability. Maybe "hypothetic"?

doubt is an irremovable feature of all claims to knowledge.

In short, no argument ever guarantees the truth of its conclusion in a manner that is satisfactory. — TheMadFool

100% agreed.

You have presented an argument as to what constitutes good rhetoric. As I said arguments don't work — TheMadFool

We clarified that rhetoric had little place in my argument, but I see your point.

You have to win hearts not strike fear — TheMadFool

Maybe many hearts are more stricken by fear of the X race, or the X party, both of which aim to destroy us all? But I'm with you on that we're arguments that are emotional to some degree tend to be more effective.

---

Is it? Can you qualify that? Because as just that general statement I would have to disagree vigorously. — Pantagruel

Do you know about "scientific socialism"? It's like saying: "OK, let's all view the world through this here lens and not through anything else." Does it prove useful to their purposes? Yes. Can it fool someone into thinking that they "know better"? Also, yes. Do they defend these arguments with vehemence? Yup.

Why do you disagree?

Because we die and tend to want to live. — dussias

SO "The ultimate technique in persuasion and rethoric(sic) is..."

...do stuff that doesn't kill you.

Well, shit.

So essentially, to say something that isn't a complete waste of the other person's time. Makes sense.

Not everyone is selfish. Most are, of course. So your point rings true.

"The ultimate technique in persuasion and rethoric(sic) is..."

...do stuff that doesn't kill you. — Banno

This disregards my OP.

---

to say something that isn't a complete waste of the other person's time — Outlander

That's one way to put it.