![]() ![]() The preface to my essay on the theses on Feuerbach explains the general background against which both essays were written. The essay below is a slightly revised version of one that was written and published in India in 1978 in the Bulletin of the Communist Platform. If so, then socialism, born of an external logic, will also remain external to individuals and will not be a submission of Society and History to individuals and their demands…” (Gorz, “Sartre and Marx”, NLR, I/37, May-June 1966, pp.38-9). It cannot come from individuals as their reappropriation by collective praxis of the resultant of their individual praxes…The positivist (or transcendental materialist) hypothesis is that the historical process is impermeable to dialectical intelligiblity. “The aim of Sartre’s enterprise, by which it stands or falls, is to establish the dialectical intelligibility of historical processes (this is not the same as the study of these processes themselves), and by the same stroke to provide a reciprocity of perspective that permits an understanding of the individual as the alienated agent of history… If the individual is explicable through the society, but the society is not intelligible through individuals – that is, if the ‘forces’ that act in history are impermeable and radically heterogeneous to organic praxis – then socialism as the socialization of man can never coincide with socialism as the humanization of the social. In the best single introduction to the book, Andre Gorz described the stakes involved here. Yet, it is certainly one of the most important (in my own view, the most important). The harsh, forbidding style of the Critique has made it probably least read text of “Marxist philosophy” ever published. But there’s no doubt that I looked toward Marxist philosophy” ( de Beauvoir, Adieux: A Farewell to Sartre, pp.172–3). ![]() I saw philosophy dwelling in the city of the future. “For my part, I didn’t see things that way. Sartre replied that, for Marx, philosophy was something that should be suppressed. Apart from the work he did on the long methodological essay that Gallimard would publish as Questions de méthode, she said, “wasn’t there another motivation? From 1952 on you had taken to reading an enormous amount about Marxism, and philosophy became something … political”. 223), and hence by comparison, rhetoric still had negative implications that are still present.In her conversations with Sartre published as La Cérémonie des adieux (1981), Simone de Beauvoir reminds him of the background against which the Critique emerged. Aristotle thought of dialectic as “a rather pure and theoretically sound method aimed at a cooperative search for cognitive truth” (Hohmann 2000, p. Aristotle took a balanced view of what he saw as a close relationship between rhetoric and dialectic, but an opposition between the two subjects remained (Hohmann 2000, p. This attack on rhetoric is visible in many places in Plato's dialogues (Krabbe 2000, p. However, the long history of the relationship between logic and rhetoric has been an antagonistic one, characterized by strife and sniping on both sides, beginning with Plato's attack on the Sophists on the basis that they took fees to teach argumentation skills. Rhetoric studies persuasive arguments based on the beliefs, commitments, or values of the target audience to be persuaded (Kennedy 1963 Tindale 1999, 2004 Jacobs 2000). Dialectic, usually taken to be a branch of logic, analyzes arguments given in a text of discourse, including fallacious arguments, evaluating them as weak or strong by examining criticisms of them (Kapp 1942 Walton 1998b Finocchiaro 2005, ch. ![]() Logic is the science of reasoning that studies formal inferential links between sets of propositions designated as premises and conclusion of an argument. ![]() The three fields of logic, rhetoric, and dialectic are all about arguments, as Aristotle showed, but each takes a different viewpoint on them. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |