Rhetorical Combat Lesson II

Who are We and Why do We Resist?

We are people who are situated at a peculiar juncture of history - the ‘‘existential’’ WHY we are so situated (I mean temporally - why are we (severally) alive NOW, why is the world ordered as it is at this time when we happen to BE alive? - is a MASSIVE question of metaphysics (and quantum physics) that is utterly fascinating, absolutely relevant, and exceedingly complicated. THAT is not what we are learning about here (although this SHOULD be a priority among your studies - see Wolfgang Smith). What we are learning TODAY is Rhetoric - how to 1) Present our claim - either as the initiatory claimant OR as the master of a counter-claim presented as Rebuttal; 2) Make that claim Persuasive - we do this by appealing NOT just to common sense but also by presenting arguments in a way that is likely to stir the passions of the target audience/trier of fact; and 3) Parry and fend off attacks from our opponents and/or challenges from the target audience of a factual, ethical or ‘‘optical’’ (i.e. aesthetic) character. We are NOT delving into an enormous, ongoing study of ‘‘mind’’, of consciousness, of ‘‘Being’’ today. Nor are we addressing in great scope and depth the History of Ideas, of Classical origins of these practices, or anything of the sort. Think of what I just referenced in metaphorical terms as Military Science - what we are dealing with today is fire-team level infantry skills. Rifle marksmanship, fire and maneuver, keeping cool in battle.

Where to claims/arguments originate from and why do they ‘‘matter’’? Let’s consider the basic structure of human MINDS - I do NOT mean grey matter, central nervous system ganglia, material components of anatomy - I’m referring to THOUGHT, impulse, and instinct structures. The MIND consists of REASON, WILL, and PASSION. Reason is what distinguishes humans from animals, it is the source of cognition, self-awareness, abstract thought, and logical processes. Will is self -explanatory - it is the purposeful and directed application of force upon and within one’s environment and all the things, objects within that environment. Passion is impulses of a pre-rational nature. Both instinctive (hunger, sexuality, fear) and emotive (hatred, anger, love, affection, fervor). Arguments are presented to organize VALUES in terms of hierarchy and priority - Values originate from human needs, human needs originate from a combination of mental and physiological causes, these myriad causes are made coherent by mind. Mind functions as an interplay of Reason, Will and Passion.

In other words, If DECLARANT says, ‘‘A is good. A is always good and thus policy must reflect A”; the DECLARANT must justify WHY A is good. He may NOT merely appeal to consensus (majorities who presumably agree with him), to ‘‘authorities’’ (powerful people or institutions who are capable of by technology, mandate or brute power to manufacture opinion or issue declaratory judgments about what is purportedly ‘‘good’’) nor simply resort to soft Ad Hominem (i.e. attack those whom oppose him) merely on declarative moral grounds (ex: ‘‘A is good. All men know A is good. If you claim A is not good, then you are bad’’. One thing that is fascinating about the current dilemma - I am not being flippant - ALL ideological cultures, subcultures feature discreet nuances that are unique to them - as well as strength and weaknesses. One of your ENEMY’S primary (if not THE primary) weak points is that his argument is NOT premised on any PERMANENT feature of man nor his environment. Rather, it is premised upon (purportedly) INNER states of mind and feeling as experienced by individual men and women AND an ephemeral, ill defined concept of ‘‘dignity’’ that is said to affect the ‘‘inner life’’ of the individual and how s/he conceptualizes him or herself.

This has OBVIOUS implications. If your ENEMY says, for example, ‘‘Marriage must be extended to gay couples - it is prejudiced and indefensible to argue otherwise’’ he has just issued an argument by naked ASSERTION, that is NOT premised on anything familiar nor precedented, nor is it based upon anything at all PERMANENT (as a category of mind nor of physical reality) nor does the way he is employing DEFINITIONS, i.e. what ‘‘marriage’’ is commonly understood to be in both structure and purpose, nor what is understood in ANY moral nor secular legal tradition as 'constituting invidious discrimination nor ‘prejudice’ nor are the things and institutions he presumes to have AUTHORITY over the subject (courts, opinion manufacturing market actors/media institutions, political pundits) do not ACTUALLY derive meaningful authority from anywhere other than the fact that powerful people who sustain, staff and manage the aforementioned institutions tend to impose their own arbitrary ideological preferences upon their TARGET audience.