Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0019
R. Nethersole
abstract:When enmity seizes language, speech needs be silenced to give meaningful communication a chance. But current Manichean structures making life a moral battleground have to first be undone to make shared problem solving possible. It is suggested that a rhetoric of the essay is better suited to this task than the rhetoric of speech.
{"title":"Un-Speaking Manichaeism","authors":"R. Nethersole","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0019","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:When enmity seizes language, speech needs be silenced to give meaningful communication a chance. But current Manichean structures making life a moral battleground have to first be undone to make shared problem solving possible. It is suggested that a rhetoric of the essay is better suited to this task than the rhetoric of speech.","PeriodicalId":46176,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","volume":"55 1","pages":"19 - 24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46053141","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0090
M. Bernard-Donals
abstract:The tension between freedom of speech and academic freedom results from the contradiction between democracy and expertise, resulting in a rhetorical "gray zone" that stymies faculty appeals to due process and constitutional protection. It's not so much that certain "uncivil" words and utterances cannot be said in this gray zone; it's that such words, when said, require one's ejection from the (academic) demos. In an examination of the case of Steven Salaita, I'll show how the tyranny of the demos, in the guise of "civility," "community standards," or "institutional values," trumps academic freedom, and how the commonplace of democracy—understood as public opinion—can and does compel faculty silence.
{"title":"Academic Freedom's Rhetorical \"Gray Zone\"","authors":"M. Bernard-Donals","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0090","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:The tension between freedom of speech and academic freedom results from the contradiction between democracy and expertise, resulting in a rhetorical \"gray zone\" that stymies faculty appeals to due process and constitutional protection. It's not so much that certain \"uncivil\" words and utterances cannot be said in this gray zone; it's that such words, when said, require one's ejection from the (academic) demos. In an examination of the case of Steven Salaita, I'll show how the tyranny of the demos, in the guise of \"civility,\" \"community standards,\" or \"institutional values,\" trumps academic freedom, and how the commonplace of democracy—understood as public opinion—can and does compel faculty silence.","PeriodicalId":46176,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","volume":"55 1","pages":"90 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44043994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0004
Elizabeth S. Goodstein
abstract:This essay meditates on the entanglement of history and memory with forgetfulness, with silencing, with what is before or outside speech. Recalling along the way a few of the manifold varieties of the unthinkable made manifest in recent events, it notes the same mute iteration that led Freud to the death drive, only to be troubled once again by the very same repetitions enfolded in the diagnosis of cultural malaise Freud built upon his insight. Turning to Georg Simmel's Philosophy of Money for an alternative, non-psychoanalytic account of unconscious purpose as a trans-individual, cultural phenomenon, it arrives once again at the hypertrophic life-technologies of the modern—and at Simmel's account of money as the ultimate being without qualities, "the most extreme … configuration of Geist" itself, which so thoroughly underpins ways of living that, obscuring dimensions of value that cannot be quantified, silently hum on in the face of catastrophe.
{"title":"The Silence of Technology","authors":"Elizabeth S. Goodstein","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0004","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:This essay meditates on the entanglement of history and memory with forgetfulness, with silencing, with what is before or outside speech. Recalling along the way a few of the manifold varieties of the unthinkable made manifest in recent events, it notes the same mute iteration that led Freud to the death drive, only to be troubled once again by the very same repetitions enfolded in the diagnosis of cultural malaise Freud built upon his insight. Turning to Georg Simmel's Philosophy of Money for an alternative, non-psychoanalytic account of unconscious purpose as a trans-individual, cultural phenomenon, it arrives once again at the hypertrophic life-technologies of the modern—and at Simmel's account of money as the ultimate being without qualities, \"the most extreme … configuration of Geist\" itself, which so thoroughly underpins ways of living that, obscuring dimensions of value that cannot be quantified, silently hum on in the face of catastrophe.","PeriodicalId":46176,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","volume":"55 1","pages":"12 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47160449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0111
J. Justice, B. Bricker
abstract:Every social order depends on a pathway to atonement for those who breach behavioral expectations. However, observers from a variety of fields now agree that the United States has entered an age of non-apology, where the two words "I'm sorry" simply cannot be said, particularly by powerful men facing allegations of sexual misconduct. This essay draws attention to, and comments upon, this trend. We first identify the sociopolitical factors that have inaugurated the era of nonapology, namely growing political polarization. We then explain the consequences of this shift in societal expectations surrounding apology. This state of affairs, which associates genuine apology with emasculation and defeat, is harmful: it foments a toxic culture that will not allow redress for survivors of sexual assault and harassment; and it provides no answers to complex questions of how society can address the guilt of those who engage in sexual misconduct.
{"title":"When \"I'm Sorry\" Cannot Be Said: The Evolution of Political Apology","authors":"J. Justice, B. Bricker","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0111","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:Every social order depends on a pathway to atonement for those who breach behavioral expectations. However, observers from a variety of fields now agree that the United States has entered an age of non-apology, where the two words \"I'm sorry\" simply cannot be said, particularly by powerful men facing allegations of sexual misconduct. This essay draws attention to, and comments upon, this trend. We first identify the sociopolitical factors that have inaugurated the era of nonapology, namely growing political polarization. We then explain the consequences of this shift in societal expectations surrounding apology. This state of affairs, which associates genuine apology with emasculation and defeat, is harmful: it foments a toxic culture that will not allow redress for survivors of sexual assault and harassment; and it provides no answers to complex questions of how society can address the guilt of those who engage in sexual misconduct.","PeriodicalId":46176,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","volume":"63 13","pages":"111 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41274223","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0119
Jacklyn Wallace
abstract:
A brief reflection on the possibility of contingency in the midst of what cannot be said.
摘要：在不能说的话中，对偶然性的可能性的简要思考。
{"title":"Rhetorical Hesitancy","authors":"Jacklyn Wallace","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0119","url":null,"abstract":"<p>abstract:</p><p>A brief reflection on the possibility of contingency in the midst of what cannot be said.</p>","PeriodicalId":46176,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","volume":"55 1","pages":"119 - 126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45322097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0047
J. Crosswhite, June Manuel
abstract:Freedom of speech and speech suppression have become fraught notions, and the question of what cannot be said is near the heart of the matter. In this essay, we describe some of the current challenges to free speech and then take up an exploration of a different but relevant "cannot be said"—silence—and inquire into its importance for a fuller understanding of freedom, speech, and "what cannot be said."
{"title":"What Cannot Be Said: The Path of Silence","authors":"J. Crosswhite, June Manuel","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0047","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:Freedom of speech and speech suppression have become fraught notions, and the question of what cannot be said is near the heart of the matter. In this essay, we describe some of the current challenges to free speech and then take up an exploration of a different but relevant \"cannot be said\"—silence—and inquire into its importance for a fuller understanding of freedom, speech, and \"what cannot be said.\"","PeriodicalId":46176,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","volume":"55 1","pages":"47 - 52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42228985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0053
O. Ochieng
abstract:This essay argues that recent catastrophizings over freedom of speech are symptoms of a conjunctural crisis in the North Atlantic world. They index, in the main, a crisis of profitability and deindustrialization in the Global North, as seen for instance in the lumpenproletariatization of the working and professional classes; increasing domestic resistance by racially minoritized groups to police violence and murder; sustained insurgencies to imperialism abroad; the militarization of borders; and widespread crises occasioned by climate change. The writings of Hannah Arendt, I argue, offer an acute angle into how a celebrated thinker in the Global North advanced influential analytical categories for policing this conjunctural crisis. Ultimately, I argue, apocalyptic discourses about the unsayable ("cancel culture," "wokeness," "de-platforming") seek to make unthinkable ongoing and emergent radical uprisings, insurgencies, and revolution.
{"title":"What Cannot Be Done","authors":"O. Ochieng","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0053","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:This essay argues that recent catastrophizings over freedom of speech are symptoms of a conjunctural crisis in the North Atlantic world. They index, in the main, a crisis of profitability and deindustrialization in the Global North, as seen for instance in the lumpenproletariatization of the working and professional classes; increasing domestic resistance by racially minoritized groups to police violence and murder; sustained insurgencies to imperialism abroad; the militarization of borders; and widespread crises occasioned by climate change. The writings of Hannah Arendt, I argue, offer an acute angle into how a celebrated thinker in the Global North advanced influential analytical categories for policing this conjunctural crisis. Ultimately, I argue, apocalyptic discourses about the unsayable (\"cancel culture,\" \"wokeness,\" \"de-platforming\") seek to make unthinkable ongoing and emergent radical uprisings, insurgencies, and revolution.","PeriodicalId":46176,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","volume":"55 1","pages":"53 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43040272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-22DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.54.4.0397
E. Popa
abstract:Fallacies are traditionally defined as potentially deceptive failures of rationality or reasonableness. Fallacy theories seek to model this failure by formulating standards of rationality or reasonableness that arguers must observe when engaging in argumentative interaction. Yet it remains relatively easy to reject or avoid fallacy judgments even in the most clear-cut cases. In this article, I argue for a pluralist approach to criticism in which the fallacy accusation is only the starting point for a more complex form of criticism. In a pluralist approach, the identification of fallacies works as a first step precisely because it can be so easily set aside. In doing so, the evaluator seeks other evaluative angles that depart from the original one. As a case in point, I exemplify the approach on a piece of argumentative discourse in the scientific context. I conclude by spelling out some of the methodological consequences of the present approach.
{"title":"Farewell to Fallacies (and Welcome Back!)","authors":"E. Popa","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.54.4.0397","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.54.4.0397","url":null,"abstract":"abstract:Fallacies are traditionally defined as potentially deceptive failures of rationality or reasonableness. Fallacy theories seek to model this failure by formulating standards of rationality or reasonableness that arguers must observe when engaging in argumentative interaction. Yet it remains relatively easy to reject or avoid fallacy judgments even in the most clear-cut cases. In this article, I argue for a pluralist approach to criticism in which the fallacy accusation is only the starting point for a more complex form of criticism. In a pluralist approach, the identification of fallacies works as a first step precisely because it can be so easily set aside. In doing so, the evaluator seeks other evaluative angles that depart from the original one. As a case in point, I exemplify the approach on a piece of argumentative discourse in the scientific context. I conclude by spelling out some of the methodological consequences of the present approach.","PeriodicalId":46176,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","volume":"54 1","pages":"397 - 420"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46312129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-22DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.53.4.0482
M. Kennedy
{"title":"Books of Interest","authors":"M. Kennedy","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.53.4.0482","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.53.4.0482","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46176,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","volume":"54 1","pages":"434 - 439"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2021-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41871484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：