Rhetorical Questions aren't questions at all. How stupid is that?
So I said this in passing on the weekend, while discussing scripture: "it's not just a rhetorical question, you know".
And today I'm still thinking about it.
I have believed that every question deserves an answer. So how can I be right if rhetorical questions demand no answer?
I thought, the speaker doesn't want an answer to the rhetorical question. If they get an answer, it takes away their control of the statement. Yet, because it is a question, they expose themselves naturally in so doing, if it happens that the hearer finds an opportunity to disrupt their speech. (Although civilised people might be more gracious, it does happen).
So I reckon that rhetorical questions are an invalid language construct, because it's effectiveness relies upon the breaking of a fundamental code of language: that questions are a request for a response.
I'd like to know more about that, thanks :)
And today I'm still thinking about it.
I have believed that every question deserves an answer. So how can I be right if rhetorical questions demand no answer?
I thought, the speaker doesn't want an answer to the rhetorical question. If they get an answer, it takes away their control of the statement. Yet, because it is a question, they expose themselves naturally in so doing, if it happens that the hearer finds an opportunity to disrupt their speech. (Although civilised people might be more gracious, it does happen).
So I reckon that rhetorical questions are an invalid language construct, because it's effectiveness relies upon the breaking of a fundamental code of language: that questions are a request for a response.
I'd like to know more about that, thanks :)
Comments (61)
The "code of language" isn't that simple. Rhetorical questions are an example of it not being that simple.
I say "That's not a rhetorical question" sometimes because I realize that it might be taken to be a rhetorical question, but it's something I'm actually looking for a response/an answer to.
Interesting question (no pun intended)!
I can think of it this way. Rhetorical questions are kind of like being passive aggressive. All in a nice way off course.
Sometimes you can't be too direct with someone for fear they may get offended about a sensitive topic. So you say the same thing passively, yet still get your point across. Then when it comes to rhetorical questions, you can always preface or qualify the question by saying..'.this is not a rhetorical question intended to insult you however my concern is that why can't you see…...' That sounds like what you did right?
From the pov of 'the committee nature of self', such questions are aspects of internal dialogue.
I don't know what "the committee nature of self" is, but I like your idea. Going a bit further in the same direction, I like the idea of a rhetorical question being one the speaker is suggesting listeners ask themselves.
Your post seems like a rhetorical declarative sentence: you asked no question, but you're expecting an answer.
Sorry to disappoint you with that observation, but no answer.
...to say nothing of apophasis!
I had to Google "committee nature of self" and then I realised that he is sharing an insight into the nature of deliberations, so it immediately made better sense to read that he was referring to my question as "such questions" because I really am "thinking out loud" .. but then I saw how it could just as well be said of those who use the rhetorical question. So it made me think, I found it to be true, and I liked it too :)
Quoting T Clark
That idea seems pretty accurate, but in order that the question delivers rhetoric and doesn't tempt the hearer to oppose the speaker, it relies upon the hearer agreeing with the speaker's own answer.
So, is a rhetorical question ever not also a loaded question?
The speaker has risk in a rhetorical question - that if someone doesn't agree with the conclusion he is drawing, they are compelled to retort. Whereas a simple statement would not tempt the hearer with the same compulsion (passions considered though,..!).
I think that is the real crux of my investigation: whether the hearer has the right to respond 'out-of-turn' as it would be, and if we consider that rhetorical questions are not to be answered, then it seems to be an oppression of sorts upon a hearer (where I am being a righteous judge of the hearer's right to be heard).
There is a unique value in your argument, that a well-presented rhetorical question can have more impact than a plain statement by virtue of the hearer drawing his own discovered comprehension, a realisation, being a knowledge that originates from internal reasoning as compared to a rote head knowledge that is painted on (if I really am right to believe that they are different.. and, I am not so sure of that, given the arguments that come to mind).
Although it isn't the most common use of a rhetorical question (because most speakers use them out of passion to appeal for support), though when questions in scripture appear to be rhetorical such as "... you though, who are you to judge your neighbour?" (James 4:12), they mostly do have that quality to them. They invite retort, and if the reader is bold enough to challenge the writer, through processing our plea there is a conviction of the truth and we gain valuable knowledge. It is a knowledge that comes from within us (ie: John 4:14) - we own the knowledge because we discovered it, it isn't plagiarized.
That's interesting, and though it has gone a long way to explain the value of rhetorical questions, still I have not found conclusively that a rhetorical question does not invite an answer. I have introduced a new principle though: a truly rhetorical question must lead to a single robust conclusion, and that must agree with the speaker's expectation.
Thanks for the discussion!
Well, it is only a part of language that happens to be in discussion here today. There are more important considerations to functional communication, than the proper use of language.
I am a person who, when I discover that others are wrong, I seek out what is right and then I cling to it and I share that knowledge with others. So that is what I am here to do, with regards to a finding I have, that people seem to assume a rhetorical question is not allowed to be challenged.
Are you sure you said it 'in passing' ? It sounds like you had a point to make about a particular passage but didn't want to, or couldn't, spend too much time on it. Can you remember the piece ?
About 'rhetorical questions' - as usual, wiki offers up information.
Quoting Wikipedia - Rhetorical question
So, it is not the case that this type of question is about getting a direct answer. However...
I am reminded of Daniel Dennet's comments on rhetorical questions in his book ' Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking', p55.
He suggests that whenever we see one, to try to answer it in our own way, creatively. You might just surprise the questioner who has used it for their own purposes.
It is a tactic he illustrates by use of a cartoon.
Charlie Brown rhetorically: ' Who's to say what is right and wrong here?'
Lucy responds: 'I will'.
The trick, I suppose, is being able to identify a rhetorical question and how it is being used.
Sometimes I ask a lot of questions - some might be taken as rhetorical and some are just put out there as they come to mind. Looking for an answer of sorts.
There is always the danger of being fearful to offer an answer - just incase the other person shrugs you off, questioning your intelligence at not recognising the obvious nature of it.
However, often it is used as a short cut - to cut off further exploration.
It is good to be aware of this tool and tactic. Look at each question carefully and decide whether it is worth answering. Why not ? What's to lose ?
Enjoying the discussion.
Yes, I did say it in passing, but also yes I did have a particular point to make (that was quite a bit larger). She had quoted the scripture and I said "that's not just a rhetorical question, you know" .. so I was saying that she was not handling the scripture as it is intended, by using a question that invites an answer as though it should not be "reasoned with" (Isaiah 1:18). But while I could remember the details of the conversation yesterday, today it has slipped my mind. I just trust that if it becomes necessary to explain, those details will come back to me, because it is certainly in there but there seems to be something blocking it :)
Quoting Amity
That is precisely what I love about children! .. there really is nothing in their nature that stops them doing what is straightforward and (seemingly) right!
Asking questions, being inquisitive, making judgements as to what is right - it is how we develop and grow.
However, it is not always straightforward - depending on who is asked and where the answers come from.
Quoting Serving Zion
Referencing scripture as a response - how helpful is that ? Sounds somewhat preachy.
Quoting Serving Zion
So - are you saying you can't remember the point ?
Quoting Serving Zion
While it is not necessary to explain, it might help to put your question in context.
What were the differences between you in 'handling the scripture as intended' ?
However, all of this is a distraction from the rest of my post.
What did you think of the content regarding 'the rhetorical question' ?
Did it lead to an improved understanding?
Evidently! :ok: That is why I say that rhetorical questions are risky, if the speaker's intention is to preach rather than to teach.
Quoting Amity
Bravo! (I shall take on board to at least generate a link in future, if it cannot be quoted. I understand the internal pressures that prevent one going to that effort when they have not a natural interest).
Quoting Amity
Ok, nevermind what that sounds like then. Make of it what you will :)
Quoting Amity
Yes, at this time, that is true. I only remember the topic at large.
Quoting Amity
I am sorry, it just is not possible to furnish those details to you. It really does evade me at this time.
Quoting Amity
Rich words! .. I certainly did not intend to do that. I chose to respond only to what was necessary.
Quoting Amity
It has already been covered in prior material on this thread.
Quoting Amity
Do you understand why you are asking this question?
You make wrong assumptions. Bravo !
Have done. Judgement made.
This reminds me of another preacher-type in another forum.
Still interesting sport for some...
It is when you say "It's cool that it sounds like a question, but it's not.", that you appear to be saying that though being framed as a question, the expectation is that it does not invite the hearer to respond. That is a most common use of rhetorical questions.
Quoting Coben
Yes, that is the problem, essentially. A civilised dialogue provides turns for each party to speak. A question is, by nature, an invitation for the other party to speak. But a rhetorical question does not intend to provide that invitation, because as you have said, it is not a question, it is a statement.
Therefore, it is natural that if a speaker uses a rhetorical question and does not expect to receive an answer (as Charlie Brown did above), then he will believe that the hearer has spoken out of turn (because the hearer interjected against a statement, he was not invited by the speaker to speak).
That is what the essential problem is, in what I have found.
The example I gave from James 4:12 explains that although the question is rhetorical, it is not confounded by a hearer interjecting to answer it, because the fundamental principle of the rhetorical question, is that it "must lead to a single robust conclusion, and that must agree with the speaker's expectation" - and the example from Charlie Brown did not do that, so therefore it confounded the speaker. Therefore, the rhetorical question in the Charlie Brown cartoon is not truly valid as a rhetorical question, because there is a valid answer to it that the speaker did not expect. He fell victim to that "risk" I have mentioned.
That is exactly why I said Bravo!
Your rhetorical question "how helpful is that ?" was a perfect case in point :up:
I agree, in all seriousness, that it would have been more helpful if you had seen the scripture. That I merely referenced it, is not sufficient for the purpose.
Yes, I have a subtle sense of humour ;)
I guess to me it's similar to a trope. Like my husband is a lion. Well we know he's not actually a lion. We could look at the grammar and the verb and decide this is a misuse of language. It has the exact same structure as sentences we use all the time literally - my husband is a butcher - but here it is wrong. But the person is not lying.
IOW we had a base function for this kind of assertion, a literal one, but we extended it to, in context, perform other functions.
I think rhetorical questions are a bit like this. It is in question form but it is not calling for an answer because the answer is obvious. It does not indicate a lack of knowledge. Its function is to elicit something the speaker considers true and uses the question form to get the person to call up the answer for themselves.Quoting Serving ZionBut that doesn't mean you don't get to speak. It just means that the person is not using the question to have to answer it. But of course you can speak in response. If you think what they think is a rhetorical question actually has an answer that is not the one they consider so obvious. Or you could disagree with its application. Or you could jump back into the previous parts of the issue and comment there.
Shakespeare uses non-rhetorical questions in his poems. Is it for fear to wet a widow’s eye
That thou consumest thyself in single life? It is not doing something immoral to people listening to the poem if he starts with that question that he does not expect and answer to from you. yes, if I read this someone in the audience might try to answer. But now we know that rhetorical and other uses of question formats exist and we can undertand that we are not always being asked a question with the purpose of getting an answer.
A question, you say, is by nautre and invitation for the other person to speak. Well, not always. We humans have expanded our uses of the question. Just as we have expanded literal use to metaphorical.
We also developed irony, which can mean that what is said, in context, actually implies the opposite.
We have introduced parody. Where it seems like we are asserting what the person we are making fun of is asserting, but actually we are making fun of their ideas.
We have expanded our use of our language. Of course sometimes this leads to confusion. But language cannot be a perfect tool The question is, for me, has expanding the uses of language been useful. I think so.Quoting Serving ZionOf course there can be poor uses of any rhetorical tool. I don't think that means the tool is invalid in general.
Analogies are often quite misleading. But sometimes they are very useful and they match the way we sometimes thing and further help to generate ideas and understanding.
It is certainly good if we use language well. And if the choices we make reflect good thinking.
I'd rephrase that then, to be more generally accurate. A question is, by nature, asking for assistance to find an answer. In the example you gave of Shakespeare, "How do I love thee?", he is searching to understand something, and though not inviting the response of the one whom he is addressing, it fits well with observations about @fresco's idea:
Quoting fresco
Quoting Serving Zion
The risk of a poorly formed (ie: fake) rhetorical question, is that the hearer who does not arrive at the same conclusion as the speaker, is compelled (and entitled) to interject and detract from the speaker's statement (and, subsequent authority to speak).
OK. So, back into the conversation for a little bit longer.
Quoting Serving Zion
You wrongly assumed I did not Google the reference. It takes no real effort, even if there is not a natural interest. Or perhaps this was a 'wrong assumption' which was intentionally placed and carefully played.
What 'internal pressures' did you think you understood as being a block to any effort ?
It is easy to find Isaiah 1:18 or any scriptural reference. Not so easy to see the relevance here.
I think you're making too much out of this, although we could probably say that about 95% of the threads on the forum. A rhetorical question is just that, rhetorical. It's intended to persuade. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be around. I use them and like them. They seem effective to me in appropriate situations. I don't think that listeners are being treated unfairly. They generally know how these things work.
Ah but this one is 'Serving Zion'...a tasty, flavoursome dish, no ?
Just a bit of a mess around.
It seems like you are saying that there is this risk of interruption and this outweighs any benefit of using rhetorical questions. How did you weigh the risks/benefits? What do you think about the potential problems of metaphors and other tropes? People might interrupt a speaker who uses a metaphor: but you're husband could not have been a lion, they are another species, someone might call out. But we take that risk because we want to have a diversity of rhetorical tools. Do you really find the risk something we just have to avoid? On what grounds?
Well, I don't know what good that might do for you, but for me I am pleased to have investigated thus far. I know much more already.
It is clear though, that right use of language is paramount to communication, and that invalid (fake) rhetorical questions do not produce good.
A valid rhetorical question reinforces the speaker's authority, and increases the value of the statement in the hearer. So, it actually is not very stupid.
Invalid rhetorical questions either tempt a hearer to break the communication protocol in order to correct the speaker's error, or degrades the speaker's authority if the hearer doesn’t retort, or if the hearer doesn't perceive the error, misleads the hearer to assume that the speaker's conclusion is absolutely right (that closes their mind and they are prone to resisting contending ideas).
Of those three outcomes, the latter is most harmful, and is precisely the wrong that I had objected to on Sunday.
I have found your comments fair and agreeable. Let me know if that surprises you and I will see if I can clarify. Thank you for your contributions.
A point lost for breaking the rules and causing confusion and a point given for creativity.
I don't believe I was wrong to assume so. It was the obvious explanation for why you would object to the action of referencing rather than asking for an explanation.
Quoting Amity
True enough, yet I do understand the internal pressures that impede us from going where others desire to lead us. I have years of experience in these matters. Even when I provide links, there are some people who, being prejudiced against the value of scripture, will simply not click it. For your information, I once was a person who, despite others copy/pasting right into the page for me, would not even look at it - with as much skill as I am able to read a newspaper without seeing the advertisements. So it equips me with experience to understand how such behaviours, regrettable though they may be, in fact can and do occur.
Quoting Amity
Speculative reasoning. Let me know if you need more information to help with that.
Quoting Amity
You have a predisposition to oppose the use of scripture, because you think it is "preachy" and that appears to be a despicable practice in your opinion.
Quoting Amity
Alright. Well, as I said, make of it what you will. I had remembered that scripture because it shows God invites reasoning and that is contrary to the spirit that produces views such as what I was addressing on Sunday, and that interprets questions as having rhetorical value without first answering the question. I thought you might rather benefit by that perspective.
Why must a truly rhetorical question must lead to a single robust conclusion? Is this a rhetorical question? What is the apodictic connection between a truly rhetorical question and the questioner's expectation? It may be that the "single robust conclusion" one who is asked the question might reach is that the questioner is misguided, and it is likely that this will not agree with the questioner's expectation.
Quoting Serving Zion
In Genesis 3 God asks Adam and Eve a series of questions: “Where are you?”, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”, “What is this you have done?” (3:9-13)
Are these rhetorical questions, iow, "slang"? Was God misusing language? Was God ignorant of where they are and what they did? Note their responses do not lead to a single robust conclusion.
Quoting Serving Zion
Seeking out what is right and knowing what is right are not the same. What you cling to may not be right even though such doubt may compel you to cling to it even more. Is it possible a well phrased rhetorical question will help loosen your grip? Or is that the thing you want most to guard against?
Quoting Fooloso4
Did you read the background to that observation? It shows that a rhetorical question is only effective if the answer to the question supports the speaker's point. In order for a rhetorical question to be effective, any valid answer given to the question must be consistent with the single conclusion that the speaker is drawing by putting the question in the given context. Therefore, it is robust.
Quoting Fooloso4
It is too early for me to know. I think that my answer to it has a potential to challenge the "single robust conclusion" that you were expecting to find, that is "it doesn't" (which is yet possible, if you can lead me to see it).Quoting Fooloso4
Hmmm, it looks to me that you have answered the question. If a hearer doesn't agree that the speaker's conclusion is necessarily true for the question, then the speaker's point has become discredited. Therefore it fails to be a robust statement, and is a failure in communication so far as a speaker's objective is to effectively convey knowledge.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes, they appear to be rhetorical questions. I have already conceded that rhetorical questions are not slang, and are in fact valid constructs of language (albeit, they do carry risk by inviting a reply, even if they might ultimately be found robust after investigation).
Quoting Fooloso4
Not at all. In fact, a rhetorical question is not a misuse of language at all, because even if the answer is given, it produces the intended statement:
Quoting Serving Zion
I am looking for an argument though, that says I am wrong to say invalid rhetoric questions (whereby the conclusion is not necessarily true) are invalid language. (An example was given by Charlie Brown earlier).
Quoting Fooloso4
No, and the purpose appears to be bringing conviction to them for their ignorance of those things.
Quoting Fooloso4
It is true to say that they might have given any number of answers, but it also is true to say that there was a single robust conclusion regardless of the answer they might give:
"I do not want to be with you", "yes, there is someone else being to me who you ought to be", "I have done what you said to not do", "I have sinned against you". In that single robust conclusion is the judgement that vindicate the speaker in the hearer's view, and that perpetuates his authority to speak over the hearer, by mutual agreement.
Quoting Fooloso4
I would advise to not take such a calculated approach, rather in humble service, allow the truth to manifest by purely honest discussion. James has observed that the "earthly, sensual, demonic wisdom is selfish and full of jealousy, but the wisdom that is from above is pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy, impartial, not hypocritical". But yeah, you can see an evolution of thought through this thread that demonstrates a tendency to cut loose the wrong when the right comes to light.
Thanks for asking!
G.I.Gurdlieff.
Gurdjieff goes on to say that at any time, one of the dominant "i"s acts as 'chairman' to regulate the unruly members. It may be that all verbalization, not just rhetorical questions, are being monitored and modified by the committee. The actual 'receiver' of the verbalization may have little to do with that imagined by 'the committee', and then there is also the reception committee to contend with !
So much for any 'rules of communication' !
You only see what you want to see. I did look up the reference. I did ask for an explanation as to context.
However, this you could not, or were unwilling to, provide. You are engaging in a dishonest manner.
Here it is again:
Quoting Amity
Quoting Serving Zion
Yes. I can believe that you have years of experience in desiring to lead people to see the value of scripture. And that they might resist for reasons of their own. Not necessarily because of 'internal pressures' whatever you think they are, and they are not always 'regrettable'. Perhaps only regrettable to you because you can't move them to your way of thinking, or looking at the world.
Quoting Serving Zion
I had/have no such block.
Quoting Serving Zion
I am fine with that.
Quoting Serving Zion
Nope. Again, wrong assumptions leading you to a false judgement, or conclusion.
I don't oppose the use of scripture at all. It depends on how it is being used. I suggested that the way you used it sounded somewhat preachy. Not despicable.
Quoting Serving Zion
Thanks for the explanation of why you referenced the passage below. Its relevance to the question of 'rhetorical questions' is still not clear to me. But perhaps you had to have been there - when you were addressing the views held by others. Hopefully it is the case that your role is that of a careful teacher not a self-righteous, dogmatic preacher ?
Quoting NIV
Good points and questions raised by careful, experienced and informed philosopher @Fooloso4
Pious response by dogmatic, dishonest-in-discussion preacher @Serving Zion
Deja vu :smile:
Yes, I did.
Quoting Serving Zion
It shows that this is your contention. Nothing more.
Quoting Serving Zion
The questioner may intend for it to lead to a particular conclusion but a questioner does not stand as the sole or final arbiter of what a valid answer to the question is. You may want to lead your interlocutor to a particular conclusion but it does not follow that a valid answer is the one that matches your own conclusion. Perhaps the given context is more problematic or complex than you think.
Quoting Serving Zion
If your answer is a potential challenge to what you imagine my expectations to be then your answer could not, by your standards, be valid. As it turns out, however, your inability to answer was exactly the answer I expected my question to lead to, which, of course, is not the same as saying it is the answer I expected you are any other particular person to draw. One way in which rhetorical questions are asked is to point to the problem of answers to it.
Quoting Serving Zion
The speaker could be wrong or the interlocutor could be wrong or both could be wrong. If the speaker asks the question it does not follow that the speaker thereby provides a conclusion.
Quoting Serving Zion
It simply fails to meet the questioner's expectation. The problem may be with the question rather than the answer.
Quoting Serving Zion
It may be that the failure is that the questioner does not know what she assumes she does. Socratic irony is instructive here in that his interlocutors often fail to recognize it. It is not a failure to communicate since others may recognize it, but a failure on the part of the interlocutor to understand not only his but our lack of knowledge of such things.
Quoting Serving Zion
Good.
Quoting Serving Zion
So, you concede this as well.
Quoting Serving Zion
You seem to have not thought any of this through since you keep changing position. Let's look at Adam's response to God's first question:
God asks: “Where are you?” to which he responds “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
Adam's answer is not a "conclusion". It does not even answer the question. What he says is nevertheless true.
How a question is answered does not determine the validity of the question or the language of the question. In addition, how a question is answered may far outstrip the intent of the questioner. How the question has been answered may lead to more questions. It is not simply a matter of correct or valid conclusions based on the initial question. The questioner may not see the implications of her question.
Your assumption seems to be that what is at issue is the determination of correct answers, but perhaps priority should be given to philosophy as the art of questioning, of examination, of inquiry, of investigation.
Quoting Serving Zion
Well, God intended for them to remain ignorant. They hid because they knew that they had done something wrong. Would they have known this if they had eaten of some other tree if God had decided that tree instead would be the one forbidden? God's questions challenge them in a way that would not have been possible before they gained knowledge.
Quoting Serving Zion
Did it? God had already made his statement and their responses are evasive and intended to shift the blame to the serpent, to Eve, and to God himself.
Quoting Serving Zion
Humble service to who are what? God? The truth? It may be that "purely honest discussion" has led you to your conclusions but the truth is it has led others to very different conclusions. What I offer as honest discussion you dismiss as "calculated". It seems to me that you do not have any interest in open-ended philosophical inquiry but rather in attempting to lead others to believe as you do, and calling what you believe "the truth".
No, humble service to me!
Quoting Fooloso4
No you read me wrong. You asked if a carefully constructed rhetorical question might help, to which I advised you to not be so calculative but rather let the truth manifest it's own conviction.
OK, so leave the rest of your post with me to consider, and I will report back to let you know how it sinks in.
You are welcome.
Quoting Serving Zion
If you click on the blue link I labelled as 'NIV' - see below. It takes you to the biblegateway website which has a dropdown menu. You can choose which version is relevant and has your keywords. Which version do you use ?
I don't think we are off topic if you are using this as contextual basis or reference for explaining your issue. However, you could be right in that there might be no further value in discussing this.
There is no personal grievance and I won't PM you. It's more interesting here :smile:
Quoting NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+1%3A18&version=NIV
You had questioned whether I did say to the lady in passing, that "every question deserves an answer" or whether I had meant to make a point by saying it. I explained that both, I had said it in passing and that I was making a point by saying it, that when a person does what she did, she is not really doing the required reasoning to be persuasive toward me. It is typical of biblical people to be that way, who have a custom of idolizing scripture but not really understanding it's true value. It is too common, so as I typed the word "reasoning", I remembered Isaiah 1:18 and I thought it would be nice to show you that God does appreciate an opportunity to work through things.
I am sorry that it grated you, I don't know how many rude bible thumpers have assaulted you with scripture in the past, but I know my own portion, how hurtful it can be. I hope this has explained my intention properly and that you might look back on what I have said as a friendly person to see that I have meant no harm.
Quoting Amity
At first, it didn't seem to have anything particularly new for me, so I wasn't really compelled to comment on it. But as you can see, I did refer to the Charlie Brown example a few times, and that evolved into an understanding that some rhetorical questions in fact are not valid (because the speaker's expected conclusion contains an element of fallacy). So it is good that I can report to you now, that you may be encouraged to know that you have brought forth one of the most valuable facts I have at the present time.
My contention has been rooted in the misuse of rhetorical questions, and when I began the thread, I didn't know that a rhetorical question needs to be incontrovertibly supportive of the speaker's loaded presupposition. Charlie Brown's rhetorical question clearly has a flaw in that sense, that in fact, Lucy might well be entitled and capable of saying what is right and wrong.
So I liked that, because I know Lucy's character and in my cartoon imagination I saw how a 3 year old girl, Lucy, might say that with such innocence that confounds Charlie Brown!
As for the rest of your post, I also wish to apologise double for having not thanked you for your contribution sooner. I can see that you really are a thoughtful, kind person, you did good work to gather the pieces that you brought to me, and you are motivated by a genuine love in doing so (Matthew 7:12). So it truly is regrettable that I failed to grasp that sooner, and that I didn't see the warning signs of this very thing in your words, and that we subsequently were severed and grappling for reconciliation.
I might have spoken differently to avoid such conflict if I had been a bit wiser, so I am grateful that you are who you are, and that despite finding that you are sometimes not appreciated fairly, still you have not held back from bringing your firstfruits.
I still don't understand the threat of rhetorical questions. I see you citing the NT above. The Bible uses metaphorical language, which also can lead to confusion. And Jesus even uses rhetorical questions:
Someone could have jumped in and interrupted, thinking Jesus wanted an answer to these questions.
I still don't see what the risk is. It is assumed, it seems to me, in this thread, that since someone might misunderstand a rhetorical question and take it as a real one, we should never use rhetorical questions. But the same thing could be said for analogies - which are also in the Bible - and metaphors which could lead to confusions and people interrupting to challenge what they are taking as literal. Language use always risks some confusion. But we seem to have decided that rhetorical tools and tropes give us more options and we want that. Not all of us, but most of us. Those who don't like rhetorical questions can of course refrain from using them and get upset when they feel mislead by them. But unless they rarely communicate, they are themselves also risking miscommunication on many occasions, when they communicate.
I think we can deal with these moments of confusion, when a rhetorical question is not being used well or an audience member mis-classifies it as a direct question. The confusion will be worked out. The only problem would come in if people were not forgiving about these small moments of confusion, which are the inevitable product of language use.
He's not expecting any of them to say 'I would'. I think that's a good idea.
Conversely, if He had made the statement "You discuss that you have no bread because you are doubting God" or "You still don't see it and you don't understand", "Your hearts are hardened", "You have eyes, but you don't see, and you have ears but you don't hear", "you do not remember" .. all these statements are plainly stating their failures, which is hard criticism, and offers no constructive value. So there is an element of grace in the use of rhetorical questions this time. By asking why, it takes the focus off their failure and puts it toward the cause of their failure, which facilitates an understanding of how they might be more successful. That could have been achieved by teaching with direct statements, but in so doing there is a risk of offending or frightening them, and losing their admiration. That's interesting!
So anyway, to be clear, I'm not against rhetorical questions and I might have inadvertently planted that idea by having said that rhetorical questions are breaking a fundamental principle of language - that is, to use a question as a statement rather than a question. But as it turns out, that a rhetorical question is only effective when the answer to it is acknowledged as being supportive of the point of the statement, so in that way, a hearer is in fact being asked to answer the question even if the only value of the question is not for the speaker's benefit of receiving the answer - but that the speaker receives the confidence of the hearer who has acknowledged that the speaker has subjected his point to the hearer's scrutiny and has been approved by it.
So then, rhetorical questions do have an element of risk because they do invite a hearer to respond, even if it be a silent acknowledgement.
In this post, I identified three main risks of a rhetorical question, and the risks only exist if the speaker's presupposition is fallacious (IOW, if what they are suggesting is necessarily true, is in fact, not necessarily true).
There is another risk to rhetorical questions, that exists even when it is robust: that they might produce a disruption to the conversation if the hearer mistakenly believes that they would benefit by rebutting.
For an example, the disciples might have answered "we discuss that we have no bread because there is no bread. Simple as that", and as you can see, that they would have quickly found that to be an embarrassing answer in light of the facts that Jesus could produce that they ought rather to have every good reason to trust. So they dared not say it.
But these days are a bit different, for a number of reasons, and as I explained in this post regarding an example from James, sometimes we might wrestle with what the speaker is saying (because we do not see that the speaker is present to defend his position, and it empowers us to become the defendant and the judge). I think that is why there is so much of the problems I find amongst book-idolising people, it is essentially an intellectual dishonesty that prevents them from wrestling with the speaker for fear that they would lose their salvation by choosing to wrestle Him - and of course, that is to believe in quite a different character than the one who says "come now, let us reason together".
So that's some new, interesting stuff for me. I hope this has helped to explain too, the things I have said.
I got these primarily from two sources....
https://blog.logos.com/2016/10/quickly-find-every-rhetorical-question-bible/
https://michaeljeshurun.wordpress.com/tag/rhetorical-questions-in-the-bible/
this second one is especially good since it categorises the different uses of rhetorical questions. IOW it catologues the benefits. And there are many benefits to this rhetorical device. So, one can then weigh the benefits against possible problems. It seems to me the writers of the Bible have implicitly come down on the side saying that the benefits outweigh the problems.
In evidence of this, I can show you
Quoting Fooloso4
.. which is based upon my having advised that you not take such a calculated approach as you were intending to do, as an effort to try and change me. I said that you should just let truth manifest through your humble service [to me].
How did you come to view me as having criticised your honest discussion when that is not what I did?
Quoting Fooloso4
.. and this shows that you are personally hating me when you shouldn't be. I am here to learn, as I said in the OP. Which means, intrinsically, that I am expecting to find reasons to change my position!
In your last paragraph of this post, you suggest that in order to "find and know" the truth, I should be ready to let go of some of the beliefs I cling to, and now that you have found evidence that I am doing just that, you have turned it into a negative thing by saying that I "keep changing my position".
So, as far as I can see, you are fixated on addressing me in a negative light, only looking for opportunities to complain against me, and that is incapable of producing constructive conversation.
For your comments on the fall in the Genesis account, I do not wish to discuss that theology in this thread, but I have given some facts in this post that I think you should consider. My theological views of the fall do not support some of the points you have raised here.
Yes, rhetorical questions really invoke thought. I think the best knowledge is discovered that way, as you can see the comparative shallowness of a plain statement compared to a richness of a wealth of possible statements coming in a moment, in response to a question.
This is one of my favourites:
In Romans 8:31 it says, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” We can supply the answer: “No one!”
Where people would make the mistake of thinking "No one can be against us, if God is for us", well, doesn't Jesus directly contradict that by saying "if the world hates you, remember that it hated me first"? Of course He does, so that is actually a really good example (though being a different one), that goes to show what gave rise to my objection. It is people who misuse rhetorical questions in that way, that create confusion and anti-knowledge, and (@Amity, look:) that is exactly the same type of lack of creativity and error that I was objecting to on Sunday. But it stayed with me. Inside of me, there was some battle going on, trying to reconcile this discrepancy. Of course, the more proper answer is "If God is for us, then anyone who is against us must also be against God" - similarly stated by Jesus "anyone who receives you receives me, and anyone who receives me, it is not me that they receive, but the one who sent me" .. or "when they persecute you and drive you out of their synagogues, even when they put you to death thinking they are doing a service to God, they do these things to you because they have not known me, nor do they know the one who sent me".
Excellent find.
From the second resource - it shows how to adjust the rhetorical questions to enable an engagement 'in the way intended'.
The author of the article is Charles V. Turner. The aim seems to be to that of a missionary. Bringing the Word of God to other cultures.
Examples of the third way:
However, this sounds prescriptive and evangelically dogmatic.
How people engage with this should be up to the individual and their beliefs.
The difference being in critical and creative faculties. Not to mention philosophical outlook. I think the third way has potential to debate any responses. But that would be another topic.
Well, I was looking for a way to present rhetorical questions to Zion in ways he might be more open to, given his quoting from the NT.
Which group of people do have in mind when you talk of 'book-idolising' ?
What do you mean by 'intellectual dishonesty'. Please give an example.
Why would you believe that there is a fear of loss of salvation ?
Why would you think that they might believe in any kind of God character, even if He is interpreted as being rational and capable of being reasoned with ?
Yes, I know and appreciate this. You are right. He is open to this kind of resource, as am I.
However, it still requires a careful and critical eye, don't you think ?
I think the best thing to do is when teaching about arguments and language use to tell people that rhetorical questions may be misleading. They carry the implication of 'this is obvious' but it may not be. Language is riddled with implicit assertions, including rhetorical questions. Just as metaphors imply that there is something useful to be gained by consider X the same as Y in some way, but it may not be true.
Let the buyer (listener) beware!
:smile:
Perhaps 2 Esdras 4 may help answer your question.
For what is often interpreted as a question without need for an answer, is but a question of fitting.
It is a certain question, with a certain form, that allots for a certain answer that fits.
But all rhetoric falls prey to "I don't know", as it's not necessary to know and thus to fit.
Quoting Scott Roberts
[ my bolds - to highlight use of evangelical tactics used in the discussion ]
Tactics to connect. As used by Serving Zion, the evangelical. The tone changed when he viewed me as a potential 'new friend'. Compare:
PREVIOUSLY:
Quoting Serving Zion
[ my bolds - evangelical tactics ]
NOW:
Quoting Serving Zion
Quoting Serving Zion
[my bolds - evangelical tactics ]
Compare negative and hostile attitude towards @Fooloso4 who he sees as an enemy, unlikely to be converted.
Quoting Serving Zion
The arrogance in this suggestion to @Fooloso4 is astounding.
'Humble service' to @Serving Zion ?
I think not.
this made me crack a smile lol
you lot on this site are something else
By nature they tend to believe what their book says and then try to rationalise it, instead of examining whether they understand it well, and then whether it seems true and insightful. They tend to be irrational in such prejudice, and equally ignorant in dismissing the books of other book people if they think their identity is not aligned. You can find people of that character in all religions and the same character in non-religious people too. I say it is idolatry because they do not follow the truth. It is prejudice, predisposed ignorance.
Majorly it was a type of Christian person, a bible-idolizing person, that is pictured as I speak this way, because that is where my experience is most reliable. But to speak generally is more correct and fair, so I named it generally.
Quoting Amity
I say it is intellectual dishonesty, because in order to believe what we read without wrestling it, when the belief is wrong, one needs to suppress the spirit of truth that internally is pleading for us to question the belief. For example, it happens a lot, when a Christian is new they might ask a question that no one in their church can answer. So they just don't understand. Then, somebody might suggest that it is better to believe it than to doubt the Word of God. So they would concede because they don't want the church to think that they don't believe the Word of God. It's a type of emotional blackmail, but there's other examples too. When someone believes that homosexuality is sin because the bible says so, but they don't understand why, that's what they are doing. Prejudiced beliefs. Parrots. It is intellectually dishonest because in their greed to believe, they need to suppress that question within that says "why?". Then, in order to justify their belief when that question comes from outside them, they need to generate an answer.
Quoting Amity
Book people believe that the book is the authoritative declaration of God, and that salvation depends upon obedience to what God says. So it naturally seems like betrayal and forfeiture of that salvation if they begin arguing with what they suppose God has said in the book.
Quoting Amity
It goes with the territory, that the type of book idolizing person I described necessarily believes that the book is the authoritative teaching of God.
Well, it is simply my vocabulary :) :up:
Quoting Amity
Tone changed, that's for sure! (Much as yours did to me after my response to your first post).
Still, beware because I see an indication that you might have bought an idea that is a false-cause fallacy.
My tone changed to you, why? Something certainly happened that allowed me to see you as more friendly, that's for sure. When I challenged you to look back over what I had said, it challenged me to do the same. Then I saw where we had gone wrong.
But nevermind that, people are constantly changing. Beware of thinking of me as a devious type described in that article. Surely he is teaching devices for capturing converts. As for me, I merely have an axe to grind, and I thought you might share some common feelings. I certainly was speaking of a genuine affection at that time, because of who I had seen you to be.
Stay vigilant! (The destroyer would equally be pleased to devour you or I through one another) - so, "let each one speak truth with his neighbour, for we are members of one another").
Autists like me spend their lives amazed at the communications complications that NTs (NeuroTypicals) indulge in. Questions that aren't questions, as you observe. Then there's the lying. NT communication is often stuffed with lies and deception. Even "How are you?" isn't what it seems. It's some sort of formulaic thing that seems to mean simply "hello". If I say how I am when you ask me, I become the weirdo you don't talk to in the future.
Someone might ask "where have you been?", and mean "I've been waiting for you for hours; account for why you've kept me waiting!" But we're the weird ones; we're disabled. :chin: Yeah, I can see how that makes sense. [Yes, I just wrote the opposite of what I meant. Helpful, eh? :wink: ]
And all that's without mentioning implied meanings, stuff you can apparently understand if you 'read between the lines'. Never say what you mean seems to be the motto, perhaps in case anyone challenges what you say, and you leave yourself a line of retreat if they do? :chin:
The majority of people of independence have had their love of truth subdued by complacency, extinguished by crueleness, or have just given up hope; so it pains or disinterests them to think much about the accuracy of their beliefs. Being content in their state of a simpler life, they do not look beyond the rhetoric of the expressions they use, and what's more, that you have battled with, is that they don't like to be exposed for it (because doing so is exposing their nakedness).
Most people think it is kind to not make a person aware of their shamefulness, because equally, most people can't really do it well. It requires grace, compassion and mercy to bring a person into awareness of their shamefulness in a way that can help them to cover themselves with honour. So if you find that they are not appreciating your observations, keep in mind that it probably isn't because you are wrong as they say, but because they don't want to be exposed and brought to see their shame while they are powerless to be clothed in dignity.
So, taking comfort in the knowledge that most people would have turned a blind eye (if they had even seen it), they are emboldened to say that you are not doing what is normal. So, normal and correct are quite often at odds, because of the social conventions on account of the currents flowing in the direction of opposition to truth - and that is because truth demands repentance, but can you tell me honestly who on earth really wants to repent? (I ask, not just rhetorically, but because it is they who have the wholeness of the human nature and it is only such types who can bring paradise on earth).