[lit-ideas] Re: Persuasion Redux
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:25:20 +0000 (GMT)
Re-posting this. Just discovered that when I press reply to Walter's posts,
the reply address is not the list but Walter's own email. This may explain
why my posts were not getting through - they were never sent to the right
address.
--- Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My last few posts appear not to have got through, which is another reason
> to
> keep this short. Just one or two points for now.
>
>
> --- wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Please see specific replies below ------------------>
> >
> > Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> snip
>
> > >
> > > This point strikes me as largely verbal: consider the assymetrical way
> WO
> > > sets up his case:-
> > >
> > > --- wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > > I want to say that being convinced by argument is not at all
> equivalent
> > > to,
> > > > or
> > > > an instance of, being persuaded.
> > >
> > > Note "being convinced by argument" is, said to be, not [at
> > > all?/necessarily?]
> > > the same as "being persuaded" fullstop.
> >
> >
> > --------> Note that my claim was not that "being convinced" is "not the
> > same
> > as"
> > "being persuaded" which is your rendering of my claim, but rather the
> more
> > specific claim we see above.
>
>
> This talk of the "more specific claim" strikes me as somewhat
> (unintentionally) ironic.
>
> (1) The "more specific claim" I made was not that Walter asserted that
> "being
> convinced" was not the same as "being persuaded" but that (as we see
> above):-> >"being convinced by argument" is, said to be, not [at
> > > all?/necessarily?]
> > > the same as "being persuaded".
>
> Walter appears oblivious to this.
>
> (2) That what is specifically claimed at (1) is correct is borne out by
> what
> Walter is quoted as saying (as seen above):-
> > > > I want to say that being convinced by argument is not at all
> equivalent
> > > >to,
> > > > or
> > > > an instance of, being persuaded.
>
> What does this mean if not - as per (1) - that "being convinced by
> argument"
> is not the same as "being persuaded"?
>
> (3) That even such a simple paraphrase as (1) leads Walter to dispute that
> I
> have rendered his claim correctly, rendered me briefly wordless.
>
> Perhaps Walter can clarify?
>
> (4) Of course the upshot of my post is that Walter 'begs the question' [or
> some such] by building the idea of "by argument" into the process of "being
> convinced" while not so building it into the idea of "being persuaded"; if
> this is done then "being convinced" is 'conceptually' or 'definitionally'
> different from "being persuaded". But why should we accept the stipulation
> -
> for despite everything that is what it is - that "being convinced" is
> always
> a rational process whereas "being persuaded" is never?/only sometimes? a
> rational process?
>
> There is then a sense in which, if "by argument" is _specifically_ inbuilt
> into the meaning of "being convinced" but not into "being persuaded", it is
> fair to say that Walter's claim can be rendered as the claim that "being
> convinced" is not the same as "being persuaded" - but I did not render his
> claim as simply as this but addressed the specifics of Walter's contrast
> between "being convinced by argument" and "being persuaded".
>
> Donal
> Unconvinced and/or unpersuaded that I have misrepresented Walter's claims.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
