Rhetoric v. Philosophy Take 1702931

Read this Machiavelli quote over at Cracked and thought it offered another (mock-Aristotelian?) way for thinking about philosophy's Idealism against rhetoric's pragmatism:

there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second



Casey said...

[Smiling big:] Oh, I just realized where you've been going wrong all these years. You have constructed a false dichotomy in your worldview where everything is either A) Philosophical/Idealistic thought or B) Rhetorical/pragmatic thought.

You're failing to see the third way... want me tell you the answer?

Insignificant Wrangler said...

I don't solely think about phil v. rhet this way, but do see it as a common way that the argument gets framed.

But I would hesitate to call the work I do with Derrida, Levinas, Vitanza and others "pragmatic."

More just having fun. So, in that spirit, do tell!