Following is a quote someone made to me recently about the matter of dialectic and rhetoric in debate (if you Google it, you'll find out where it's from):
When people debate, they have limited attention spans. This means cultured manners are vital to successful persuasion. Overanalyzing logic does not make things easier for an audience to understand or appreciate.
However, the middle class is not the most cultured within society. The cultured are the upper class, and in turn, it can persuade the working class with appeals to emotion, popularity, misery, absurdity, and word games most effectively. To be uncultured is to be recognized as unmannerly, so in turn, the middle class loses debates.
This leads to what I call the "Country Club Effect". If upper class people are trying to make their country club more exclusive (because they're spoiled brats and looking for novelties to entertain them), they make it more difficult to join. Whether it's through social policy, fiscal policy, or foreign policy doesn't matter. One way or another, the upper class inhibits social mobility on purpose by employing rhetoric, not dialectic, in debates. Logical dialectic is boring, and it suggests boring character. Cultural rhetoric is exciting, so it suggests exciting character.
Unfortunately, social status must be afforded logically through sustainable means of production, so as long as cultural discussion overshadows logical discussion, the logic required for a sustainable middle class will fade away.
In order for the middle class to be resurrected, the foundational character of debate must change from rhetoric to dialectic. It must change from cultural language to logical language. That way, people can personally invest the time, energy, and attention to logically cultivate culture and manners in the first place instead of consuming unsustainable word games with what's already cultivated.
Are you suggesting that since manners are culturallly determined, it's important to be unmannerly, since somehow that will make you independent of culture?
When people debate, they have limited attention spans. This means cultured manners are vital to successful persuasion. Overanalyzing logic does not make things easier for an audience to understand or appreciate.
However, the middle class is not the most cultured within society. The cultured are the upper class, and in turn, it can persuade the working class with appeals to emotion, popularity, misery, absurdity, and word games most effectively. To be uncultured is to be recognized as unmannerly, so in turn, the middle class loses debates.
This leads to what I call the "Country Club Effect". If upper class people are trying to make their country club more exclusive (because they're spoiled brats and looking for novelties to entertain them), they make it more difficult to join. Whether it's through social policy, fiscal policy, or foreign policy doesn't matter. One way or another, the upper class inhibits social mobility on purpose by employing rhetoric, not dialectic, in debates. Logical dialectic is boring, and it suggests boring character. Cultural rhetoric is exciting, so it suggests exciting character.
Unfortunately, social status must be afforded logically through sustainable means of production, so as long as cultural discussion overshadows logical discussion, the logic required for a sustainable middle class will fade away.
In order for the middle class to be resurrected, the foundational character of debate must change from rhetoric to dialectic. It must change from cultural language to logical language. That way, people can personally invest the time, energy, and attention to logically cultivate culture and manners in the first place instead of consuming unsustainable word games with what's already cultivated.
Last edited: