Rhetoric in the Twenty-First Century

Looking at the future of rhetoric

Links

• http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html• https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QWS4B

gAAQBAJ&hl=da• https://www.ut.ee/SOSE/sss/pdf/kull292.pdf• https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?i

d=219399

Chaim Perelman

• Rhetoric has since Chaim Perelman revisited it in the aftermath of the Second World War enjoyed over the years a renaissance. In many respects what Perelman succeeded in doing was to rediscover the fundamental features of classical rhetoric as first formalized by Aristotle.

Features of Rhetoric

• These features included the moral aspect (for Aristotle the goal of rhetoric aimed at a good and this was something to do with the concept of arête) and the informal logic (enthymeme). He also rediscovered the philosophy in rhetoric. His approach was elegant based on Gottlob Frege’s mathematical reasoning; he sought to understand how people establish value in arguments

Formal and Informal Logic

• In an essay on formal and informal logic Perelman demonstrates the usefulness of rhetoric in the real world. Logic and artificial languages are closed , whilst rhetoric is open and uses natural language. The truth/good in rhetoric is deferred. Perelman showed how logic fails in interpreting natural language statements like “Money is money”. The logician might see it in terms of identity or see it as tautological. What Perelman of course is pointing out is the arbitrariness of natural language and its dependency on audience and context.

Use of language in different Worlds• Now consider this, if we use the proverb “time is money” in an

argument where the linguistic codes are shared in the real world, is there any difference between if we use it within a simulated or virtual world? What are the values in an exchange where the interlocutors are avatars? Is it conceivable that in the virtual environment that the use of this expression might trigger off some algorithm? That its function goes beyond a proverb expressing wasting time on something is also a waste of money that could have been earned? Now in the third instance we might ask what would the value be in the augmented world which integrates the simulated and the real?

Values in Worlds

• The values surely would be different? Here one thinks of Superman comic and the cloned reverse “shadow” world HtraE where a Frankenstein Superman Bizarro reigns . Why would the values be different? Because, the world is not only perceived differently, but it is different. If we look at the ontology and formation of knowledge in the three worlds: the Real World (RW) Virtual World (VW) and Augmented World (AW) we can see that the values in an argument are different.

Value in Natural Worlds.• In some ways this parallels what happens in nature –

there is a multiplicity of eco-systems and unwelts each with different communication systems and values. The channels and means of delivery are very diverse. Another point is that in nature most communication is restricted with dedicated channels. The male moth for example might be exposed to numerous olfactory signals and cues, but its antennae are dedicated to the female pheromone. The rest is noise. However, when we move up the evolutionary ladder we find more flexibility and variety in communication systems.

Biorhetorics

• But nothing, corresponding to human language. In my own theory of rhetoric, biorhetorics I developed a pared down rhetoric using a linear equation. It was simple and the purpose was to develop an argumentation system that might be used in biology and conflict of interest situations. The theory was premised on the notion that the foundations of communication are evolved semiotics.

Biorhetorics Linear Equation

The Equation

In the equation we see that to persuade the audience to move from X to Y is dependent on the force of the argument and everything within it is a factor of that distance. Here we can talk of the probability of a successful argument.

Argument in Nature

Throughout nature we see examples of arguments that use natural communication systems. By analysing them we can identify values such as resources, etc. These can be utilized in the construction of an argument architecture.

Crow versus Hawk

Biosemiotics

• Communication has evolved over millions of years. For some the coding and signalling even at the level of primodial or protolife had formal similarities to linguistics, i.e. being pragmatic, syntactic and semantic.

• See http://www.biocommunication.at/modules/info/index.php?id=1:1

The Levels and Organization of Rhetoric

In many university departments rhetoric focuses on discourse. It is used to analyze human speech and texts. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. For millions of years life forms have communicated and argued with each other. If those communication systems are semiotic then we can construct functional biorhetorical equations.

Using Perelman

In interactions there are benefits and these are values. How valuable is a pheromone to an ant? Which chemical compound elicits a positive response? What sounds have a calming influence on domestic animals?

Human to other species communication

What kind of order of communication is there? When we communicate with animals does it move beyond mimicry? Which of the three worlds (Real), (Virtual), (Augmented) is it closest to? What about values in the exchange? Is there parity? What about proximity?

Modelling argumentation across boundaries

In the classical world we share competencies. We understand often the target in its richness. In

cross-species communication there are evolved competencies which are pre-symbolic.

We fill in the gap through projection of symbolic onto the semiotic and syntactic. That

is we anthropomorphise.

Ecology of rhetoric

In nature much of the argument is external. It is primarily a world of exposed signals and cues. Much of the reactions are stereotypical little more than stimulus/ response. Nevertheless the repertoire of signals is very diverse.