Logos: The only part of persuasion that should matter, yet generally the least useful in actual persuasion. Which of these do you think would persuade you?

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Hm. Came here to disagree, thoughts changed a little while I was putting them together.

First, an aside - because I remember you being one of the ones implicated in that big drama that came over the border from voat, but right now I'm not recalling if I ever yelled at you about it; I think I did. Regardless, this sub seems good. More of this, less of drama. Passers-by take note. Or not.

Now, to the topic: My original position was going to be disagreement, on the basis of an over-valuing of logos leading to the catastrophic fallout of the so-called enlightenment's attempt to instrumentalise the world, but I realised then that the rectification lies in the names, and that some of what's living in that grey box is awful vague in its generalness.

What is a "fact", really?

If a fact is a truth, then it's a fact that the form of the good is the source of all virtue, but there's no way to get at such things with numbers and science. Or, the argument in its essence: tangible means of instrumentality can not address issues of the transcendental.

Thus, if logos here is to represent factual things, but also tangible things, then it faces the dilemma of things that are factual but not tangible, and things that are tangible but not factual. We might resolve this by defining these things only within a given frame of reference, but that runs the risk of making slippery definitions even more so.

That's without getting at the fact that this whole thing is very Aristotelian, and even setting aside my personal disagreements with some of his philosophy, I feel at the very least you ought to address the distinctions in logos as expressed in atechnic and entechnic contexts, respectively.

Personally, I suspect that our modern society has actually blurred the idea of something like logos through repeated overanalysis, and what we treat as a more strictly scientific rationality was used by the philosophers of old to refer more to something like the innate capacity of the human mind to pick veracity from falsehood through consideration of a thing's aspects.

Hm. Came here to disagree, thoughts changed a little while I was putting them together. First, an aside - because I remember you being one of the ones implicated in that big drama that came over the border from voat, but right now I'm not recalling if I ever yelled at you about it; I think I did. Regardless, this sub seems good. More of this, less of drama. Passers-by take note. *Or not.* Now, to the topic: My original position was going to be disagreement, on the basis of an over-valuing of logos leading to the catastrophic fallout of the so-called enlightenment's attempt to instrumentalise the world, but I realised then that the rectification lies in the names, and that some of what's living in that grey box is awful vague in its generalness. What is a "fact", really? If a fact is a truth, then it's a fact that the form of the good is the source of all virtue, but there's no way to get at such things with numbers and science. Or, the argument in its essence: tangible means of instrumentality can not address issues of the transcendental. Thus, if *logos* here is to represent factual things, but also tangible things, then it faces the dilemma of things that are factual but not tangible, and things that are tangible but not factual. We might resolve this by defining these things only within a given frame of reference, but that runs the risk of making slippery definitions even more so. That's without getting at the fact that this whole thing is very Aristotelian, and even setting aside my personal disagreements with some of his philosophy, I feel at the very least you ought to address the distinctions in logos as expressed in atechnic and entechnic contexts, respectively. Personally, I suspect that our modern society has actually blurred the idea of something like *logos* through repeated overanalysis, and what we treat as a more strictly scientific rationality was used by the philosophers of old to refer more to something like the innate capacity of the human mind to pick veracity from falsehood through consideration of a thing's aspects.

link

[–] • 0 pt

Or, the argument in its essence: tangible means of instrumentality can not address issues of the transcendental.

Not in the habit of considering the unfalsifiable fictions of imagination worthy of consideration in any philosophical or reality-based discourse.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Partially agree. Like a firm handshake, it's a part of the puzzle.

link

[–] • 1 pt

Title was overly generalized. SOME of ethos and pathos are also important, as they convey confidence in the position, but the meat of the issue will always be Logos. And I see it so rarely these days.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Logos is a new name for old concepts. It's like a buzzword. "Synergy". It's possible logos aren't rare at all but the ability to recognize them is. New words for old shit. I don't walk thru life sharing my opinions 24/7. I have responsibilities and costs. I don't see logos as one thing or another. They just kinda are. The cross itself is a logo torn down by the media on a daily basis. The star of david less so... but everyone expects the moon and star to get sucked. That's not entirely what you were referring to. Just an aspect. We can also find it in "the death of men".

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

These rhetorical concepts aren't new. He means logic, not the symbol of something. Logos as in logos, pathos and ethos. Not the golden arches or the Goodwill face.

parent
link