[lit-ideas] Re: Persuasion Redux

  • From: wokshevs@xxxxxx
  • To: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:30:58 -0330

To clarify: In saying that my claim was more specific than Donal's rendering of
it as 

"'being convinced' is not the same as 'being persuaded'," 

I was referring to the fact that I had written, (and I quote my very own
well-chosen, albeit perhaps slightly marinated words): "I want to say that
being convinced by argument is not at all equivalent to, or an instance of,
being persuaded."  I understand my latter claim to be more specific than
Donal's version of what I said; I do not understand myself to be arguing
against the claim that the two are not the same. 

How's this for an entente cordiale? Let's say that "being convinced" is indeed a
species of "being persuaded" such that one can be persuaded by reasons and not
necessarily only by extra-epistemic factors. This would then allow for such
locutions as: "I have been persuaded by the other jury members that the accused
is innocent. I am now convinced of his innocence." (Philosophically, there does
remain an imp. difference here, but I won't push it, hoping instead that Donal
will accept my friendly amendment.  Russians are so accomodating, don't you
know.)

The important philosophical (and educational) point, still preserved within this
new lexical cartography, is the distinction between being motivated by reasons,
and being motivated by non-epistemic factors. 

Walter O
MUN






Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 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.
> 
>   
> 
> 
>       ___________________________________________________________
> Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! For Good
> http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
> 



------------------------------------------------------------------
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: