Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T02:12:22.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Persuasion, Rhetoric and Authority

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Luca Maria Scarantino*
Affiliation:
Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, Paris

Abstract

The author argues that the persuasive process is articulated within a dynamic linking beliefs and emotions. The different possible states of equilibrium balancing these two aspects define a persuasive process as more inherently rational or more inherently rhetorical. This latter, being marked by an immediate emotional participation, functions within a social context of the community type. It is dominated by an aesthetic form of communication, where epistemic belief proceeds out of a conformist adherence to the ethos of the group. Its extreme form is represented by the discourse of propaganda. Linked to the epistemic structure of the rhetorical discourse there corresponds a moral structure of resentment and an authoritarian social structure. Although rational elements and emotional elements still coexist within concrete discourses, the possibility of distinguishing them in terms of autonomous functionalities represents the specific adjunct brought by philosophical reflection to the determination of the epistemic structure of persuasion.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotle (1959) The Art of Rhetoric, transl. John Henry Freese. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Dupréel, G. (1949) ‘La pensée confuse’, in Essais pluralistes. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Huxley, A. (1959) Eyeless in Gaza. Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin.Google Scholar
Morris, C. (1946) Signs, Language and Behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nietzsche, F. (c. 1889) The Genealogy of Morals, transl. Francis Golfling. New York: Doubleday, 1956.Google Scholar
Perelman, C. (1971) Logique et argumentation. Brussels: Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Perelman, C. (2002) L'empire rhétorique. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Perelman, C. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1952) Rhétorique et Philosophie. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Preti, G. (1957) Praxis ed empirismo. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Preti, G. (1968) Retorica e logica. Turin: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Preti, G. (1983) ‘Sodoma: democrazia e risentimento' [1968] in Pra, M. Dal (ed.), In principio era la carne. Milan: Angeli.Google Scholar
Preti, G. (2002) Ecrits philosophiques. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
Scarantino, L.M. (2003) ‘Giulio Preti (1911—1972), a critical rationalist’, Diogenes, 202: 141–7.Google Scholar
Scarantino, L.M. (2004) ‘Violenza e persuasione razionale nel pensiero di Giulio Preti’, in Parrini, P. and Scarantino, L.M., Il pensiero filosofico di Giulio Preti, pp. 227–52. Milan: Guerini.Google Scholar
Scarantino, L.M. (2006) ‘Violenza e libertà nella filosofia trascendentale di Giulio Preti ’, Rivista di storia della filosofia, LX: 653–71.Google Scholar
Scarantino, L.M. (2007) Giulio Preti. La costruzione della filosofia come scienza sociale. Milan: B. Mondadori.Google Scholar
Scheler, M. (1994) Ressentiment, transl. L. B. Coser and W. W. Holdheim. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, C.L. (1944) Ethics and Language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar