thibr wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozYlXG3QeUI
For two millennia, they have sought each other, bickered and sometimes even waged war.
Rhetoric or philosophy?
Which is most useful for men?
Philosophers reproach rhetoricians for making too little regard for truth, for betting everything on efficiency, even if it means deceiving, obscuring judgments, and manipulating.
For their part, the rhetoricians will blame the philosophers for spending too much time in their theories and too little in contact with life.
It's easy to have clean hands when you don't have hands. Yes, the rhetorician assumes to do everything possible to help those who seek to shape tomorrow.
But although I play in the rhetorical team, I encourage you, obviously, to nourish yourself with philosophy.
So I called on one of its proud contemporary representatives.good reflection
Answer without ambiguity, philosophy.
First, the criticism mentioned by rhetoricians against him does not hold water. The philosophy is well anchored in reality and must be, since it is a reflection on our condition. Admittedly, it is not always practiced with a forceful demonstration of detailed remarks, but when it is, it is fascinating because we really get an insight into the reality that we then see differently. It can also be, but in a language that is too hermetic, and the relationship to reality will not be seen by the uninitiated. This is the lot of a few philo teachers without pedagogy, with their students, while others know how to awaken and provoke reactions in young people.
If the art of rhetoric is useful for clearly expressing one's ideas, it is misguided, especially with communication which, in my opinion, is its current form: it is not a question of asking questions to open or solicit minds, nor of to speak on all aspects of a problem, not to question and seek the truth, but to convey your own and get the other to adopt your point of view. It is the art of politicians and salespeople. If you do not agree with them, they will say to you: "if we did not succeed in convincing you, it is that we probably expressed ourselves badly". They will never say: "if you do not agree with us, it is because you have understood us correctly but see things according to your own grid of criteria".
Philo: 1 Rhetoric: 0.
