What is the relationship between persuasion and rational dialogue?

Question

in philosophical terms

Answer 1

I highly recommend Plato's dialogue 'Gorgias' for a detailed answer to this (link 1 for full text). Plato argues (and I agree) that rhetoric and persuasion are in some senses the exact opposite of reason. A short exerpt:

"...the rhetorician need not know the truth about things; he has only to discover some way of persuading the ignorant that he has more knowledge than those who know..."

He goes on to compare it to the art of cooking, which makes foods TASTE nice but doesn't make them healthy. So too with persuasion, which can make ideas seem nice whether they are or not.

If there were NO persuasion, only the most reasonable idea would prevail. In theory. No-rhetoric zones are, unfortunately, all too rare.

Answer 2

Wonderfully contentious. For literally millennia, any open discussion in this arena was extremely one-sided in that arguments against religion in most societies would have most likely resulted in very serious social opprobrium at best and slow and painful death at worst. (Old communist regimes seemed to some extent to have taken a lead from many god-fearing societies in this respect.) It's vitally important that religion is forced to account for itself in specific and objective detail in the light of the extraordinarily extravagant supernatural phenomena that many claim for their respective beliefs as wel as the hideous strife which continues to be part of so many faith-based sectarian conflicts across the globe. The explanation of faith is no longer sufficient. It's a healthy debate because it's one that has is gaining greater and greater publicity and subtle articulation. As an anti-theist, I've certainly been utterly fascinated in the huge range of discussion material available on the internet lately as well as much in the way of traditionally published documentation.