Rhetorical Rationality

Thinking of ourselves as rational creatures, we often resort to rhetorical techniques to sound rational rather than putting in the effort to actually think. As David Hume pointed out, an argument is often invented after we have already decided on a conclusion. So an argument is rhetorical in the sense that it is designed to persuade so-called “rational beings”. We do not generally arrive at Truth via an argument.

That be as it may, a good argument is still appreciated. Sometimes though, we are too lazy even to come up with a good one. Rather, we resort to cheap rhetorical tricks to appear rational.

A common device is to come up with lists of three. For some reason, the number three has a magical appeal to the mind. The classic list of three, of course, being the syllogism:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Socrates is mortal.

which is unassailable from a purely definitional point of view, which is fine as a demonstration of formal logic. But we often take the syllogistic skeleton to give nonsense apparent logical rigour, like so:

1. Capitalism promotes personal freedom.
2. Freedom is good.
3. Capitalism is good.

It’s nonsense. Capitalism is not wholely good. Such a complex cluster of ideas as Capitalism simply cannot fit into the framework of syllogistic structure. Yet we do something like this all the time.

1. I need money.
2. A job makes me money.
3. I need a job.

Again, the inattentive mind would simply glide through the points without thinking. Even though the “argument” is blatantly fallacious, the rhetorical technique is seductively effective.

In fact, any list of three would trigger a sense of satisfaction in the “rational” mind. Why do I need a car?

1. I often take people around.
2. It rains a lot in Vancouver.
3. I can show off.

As soon as I reach three points, I am satisfied. But of course, there are often more than three points. And sometimes there are less than three points. But we would still feel powerfully drawn to pad the list to make three, perhaps by making a slight variation on an existing point.

So I avoid lists of three. I always try to think more. Failing that, I try to condense, to see if there is a unifying idea behind the points. Stopping at three, I am being lazy.

If you like my writing you should follow me on Twitter.