Rhetoric is simply the art of persuasion. As Socrates discovered, however, to his great dismay, not all rhetoric is accompanied by knowledge. The sophists of his day made it incontrovertibly clear to him that their style of rhetoric required no knowledge whatsoever. And without knowledge, reason, not having anything to sink its teeth into, cannot operate.
Socrates could not begin to understand how one person could persuade another to a particular view without giving him any reason for doing so. The gadfly of Athens would be equally perplexed in today’s commercial world, where successful ads are typically barren of enlightening information. And he probably would be horrified at what routinely passes now for moral argumentation. In fact, contemporary sophists appear to be more active and influential than ever before.
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, now turned “eco-warrior,” has an Oscar-nominated documentary whose title, An Inconvenient Truth, is a case in point. Most truths are, in one way or another, inconvenient. Yet, as Christ tells us, the truth will make us free. Surely, the humanity of the unborn is an inconvenient truth for some. But why is it that applying the same rhetorical phrase to the unborn has virtually no persuasive power in the secular world, whereas Al Gore uses it with great effect in his campaign to warn people of what may be an impending eco-disaster?
Similarly, the health hazards of engaging in homosexual acts also represent an “inconvenient truth.” Nonetheless, people have been faulted, fined or fired for just pointing this out. Sometimes the “inconvenient truth” must yield to the “sacred untruth.”
The fact that the same rhetorical statement works in one instance, but not in another, is a strong indication that people are not thinking very deeply. Why is it that Al Gore’s supporters are “environmentally responsible,” while those who oppose abortion are “anti-choice” and those who point out the scientifically documented health risks of homosexual behaviour are “homophobic”?
In Portugal, where a referendum took place on abortion, pro-life forces adopted a rhetorical strategy they borrowed from the secular world. Accordingly, they inaugurated a program entitled, “Say no to discrimination.” Their syllogistic reasoning runs as follows: 1) human beings should have their lives protected by law; 2) preborn babies are human beings; therefore, 3) preborn babies should have their lives protected by law. Their new slogan is, “Please say no to discrimination.”
This strategy will work, however, only if people are willing to look below the surface of the slogan. We know that the very same slogan works well in some instances and fails miserably in others. Thinking more deeply about the abortion issue did not seem to be a problem for people of yore. But in today’s climate of catch phrases and rhetoric without reason, depth of thinking seems dreadfully unfashionable. Nor does consistency count for much.
“The disease afflicting the modern world is, above all, a disease of the intellect,” wrote Jacques Maritain in 1958. Nothing has transpired since then to justify altering his diagnosis. If our knowledge is faulty, so will be our choices. This is the case because the will follows the intellect. Christ alluded to this ordered relationship when he stated, “If the eye is worthless, the whole body is in darkness” (Matt. 6:23; Luke 11:34).
The great problem, then, is how to realign the mind with reality. The intellect may at times be in error, but it is never because of its essential nature. An error in operation need not be the result of a flaw in the faculty. A driver may steer a mechanically sound vehicle into a tree. The fault in this case is with the driver, not the steering mechanism.
There is great hope in this notion. We cannot impair our intellect in its fundamental nature. Our errors are always of a secondary or accidental character. If we can set aside prejudices, blind commitments, ideologies and so forth, we will be able to focus on reality once again. Then, the truth, inconvenient or otherwise, will be visible to us in its radiant clarity (“splendor veritatis”). As a result, we will find ourselves in a good position to know what we should do.
When rhetoric is subordinated to reason, we cease trying to pull the wool over each other’s eyes and commence talking about the truth of things as a common reality. There is no other way to circumvent discord and work toward building a culture of life where people can co-operate together for the good of everyone.
Dr. DeMarco is an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary.
