Rhetoric at its root is the practice of convincing others. Small children engage in rhetoric. Logical arguments, also used by children to greater or lesser degree, are used to support the rhetoric.
So both are human to pursue, regardless of training.
That said, I believe Plato made a mistake in dismissing Rhetoric and Aristotle made a mistake in putting Rhetoric and Dialectic in “separate but equal” categories.
I believe the Byzantines got it right when they taught Rhetoric as the pinnacle.
Logic is used to support Rhetoric as one of many tools. Dialectic is one of many tools. But their ultimate goal is Rhetoric.
—–
I blame Mehmet II’s new “by the book” style political Islam, which had been growing in popularity in Persia for about two centuries prior (and I don’t know the group names), which was uncharacteristic of earlier Islam.
Thankfully the knowledge transfer happened at the Council of Florence or there wouldn’t have *been* a Renaissance.
Oddly, for some reason, instead of giving credit, the re-invigorated schools seemed to have a collective amnesia, one that continues to this day, where history is not all that important compared to the ideas themselves. [the influence of Plato upon the Renaissance is remarkably everywhere once you see it, and how it continues today in the way we tend to distinguish between ‘ideals vs reality’ etc.
==
[I also lay blame at the Latin Pope as well as other groups that barraged Constantinople, as well as their internal excessive confidence.. but that’s going into a whole ‘nother discussion 
🙂 ]
—
I need to brush up better on the proper distinctions. Arab/Roman strikes me as “earlier Islam / Byzantium” and “Turks and Persians and western powers” seems to equate to how I refer to the new fundamentalism that was sweeping parts Islam at the time along with the war-like ways of the Latin Pope and those coming from Europe.
Am I getting the categories in the right places? I’ll take corrections here.
====
Reading someone who knows their stuff about this time period is music to my ears here.
I use Byzantine because it’s quickly understood, although I have occasionally switched to “Eastern Roman” so the geographical distinction isn’t lost when I want to emphasize the continuity of the Roman Empire in Constantinople.
I can’t yet bring myself to just say “Roman” without the Eastern. When I do I *then* have to switch to “Latin” or “Latin Pope” or “Latin Church” to refer to the Church of Rome, which sometimes confuses people.
An interesting overblown (and historically inaccurate in many parts but so were all the gladiator movies that were popular in the same time frame) presentation of the politics at play is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetih_1453
It’s a pro-Turkish “feel good film” and while their portrayal of… too many things to name were way off, I think they got the awkward and strained and somewhat back-stabbing relationship between East/West Christendom pretty well.
After all, even though Constaninople wasn’t exactly the “city of gold” the Turkish and Pope and European fighters thought it was, nevertheless, it was seen as a great prize, hence the two centuries of fighting for it.
One thing that always fascinated me was Holy Fire — the war weapon not the yearly event. I’ve heard speculation as to its nature but from the reports of those who fell victim to it, it must have been something awe inspiring and terrifying.
—–
I’d say that I see more people who believe they are using various forms of logic, philosophy and science as exclusive forms of rhetoric while remaining generally unaware of the ACTUAL forms of rhetoric they’re using.
One example is when people get upset during debates. The tools they turn to are often a very limited set of rhetorical tools. Shouting, badgering, sarcasm – very childish and coarse means of convincing.
Yet if they could step back outside of themselves and try to see the whole form and structure of their arguments *including* their every exchange with others (as if they were analyzing lawyers in a courtroom and their tactics), they’d realize they have some more studying to do in the ‘art of convincing’
====
I’ve been witnessing some common rhetorical tactics used by internet trained people on the political right for a few years now and the better trained ones who do not give in to overt emotional outbursts, instead adopt what I can only refer to as “slimy”.
I was involved in one tonight on my college’s alum page. It’s the most liberal of colleges – the one that took the flag down for a few weeks in November – and a few Alumn are definitely ‘on the right’ – in the ‘anti-SJW’ camp.
Their algorithms are as predictable as any standard internet debate but they’re a little more refined to the point of creepy.
Each word precisely chosen, an algorithm of attempting to subversively gain someone’s assent to one of their points, even to the point of fake compliments issued to those debating against them, leaving me with a feeling like someone was just trying to sell me a used car off a used car lot.
It’s never dull on this here internet.
=====
[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]