γνῶθι σεαυτὸν: Methods of communication?

Throughout human history, people were constantly communicating with each others in many different ways. It is very important to communicate because only through dialogue with others we can accomplish something more, the things we are not able to do alone. There are certain ways to communicate with others to come to some conclusion, such as Rhetoric, Debate, Dialectic and dialogue of love.

Current belief is that people who can convince others are successful ones. The historical definition of rhetoric is “the art of using language effectively in order to persuade others.”. Rhetorical speech is very important, especially for a leader, if he wants people to follow him. Question is, where is he leading, for his own egotistical cause or for the collective good? Rhetoric tactics are like verbal or written weapon.

Famous philosopher Aristotle said that there are three main tactics: logos, pathos, and ethos. The fourth one is argumentum ad populi (Latin for “appeal to the people”)

There were many great rhetoric speakers in history, at the same time some of them leaders of great powers such as Hitler, Stalin etc.

Firstly, using ethos means to establish your credibility among people. It is important that people trust you if you want to pursue them in your beliefs.

Secondly, pathos is all about waking strong emotion in crowds. Fear or anger can be used to convince people of your cause.

Thirdly, logos is simply making strong and logical reason, for some specific action and beliefs. For example, one of the greatest rhetoric leaders and dictator in the Soviet Union was Stalin. In his rhetorical speech during WWII, you can see how he uses every single technique.

He begins with, pathos, emphasizing that enemy is at the gate of Moscow, evoking fear amongst people and anger towards the enemy.

Furthermore, using ethos, recalling the year 1918, when with the spirit of Lenin, Red Army was organized and the enemy was defeated.

Lastly, using logos, proving that country is in a better position than 23 years ago, having allies on the front, with strong army and navy, reserves in manpower are inexhaustible, richer in industry, food and raw materials.

In the end using argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"), mentioning Russian heroic images, great ancestors (Alexander Nevsky etc) and ideal such as motherland.

We have two sides here, one side is just listening and another side is just talking. Thing is that one individual is very active, while the huge mass of people is passive, expecting to be persuaded, so individual (rhetoric speaker) is just giving to the masses thing they want.

This situation can be seen as a chain reaction because there are strong and weak links. Weak links are ignorant people, convincing them in whatever idea, good or bad, is easy and they are the loudest and numerous group. It is easy for them to spread like cancer, making chaos in the social organism. Breaking the strong link is harder because these people actually think rationally. Here we see the breaking point. Under the pressure of group influence, surrounded by many, stronger link conform within the group. To fit in, to be accepted, individuals publicly accept views of the group, although privately they reject them because there is that fear to stand out, to be rejected. It can be very destructive when such a mass of people is released on the streets, with some radical ideas. For example, the same way when a tsunami hit shores, it will destroy everything on it is way.

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi), and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.

Two negative aspects about rhetoric.

First, just because you pursued somebody in something, that does not mean it is right.
Second, there will always be one who persuade and the one who is persuaded of, there will always be winner and loser.
The greatest man who walked on the earth was murdered by mass of people, led by the wisest man of that time. His last words were these: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."

Shortcuts for persuasion

1 Reciprocity (giving because you received - Giving personal and unexpected)
2 Scarcity (people want more of those things there are less of )
3 Authority (Credibility )
4 Consistency (comitment - voluntary, active, public)
5 Liking (similar people, people who gave us compliment, people who cooperate)
6 Consensus (people will look to the actions of others to determine their own)

1 Assertion
2 Repetition
3 Infection

The political world of today has numerous issues and changes to consider. It is important to have debates on different topics if we want to find a good solution. For debate we need 2 sides, one side is a pro and another side is a con. There can be individual or teams on sides. Also, we need a neutral judge, who will make an order in the debate. There are certain rules in the debate.

For instance, each side has a certain time for presenting arguments. One side is beginning; pro side is presenting their argument while Con side is just listening. Next, con side is presenting their argument, while pro group is just listening. Furthermore, we have now the Pro group giving a counter argument, and in the end, con group is giving counter argument also. The debate can take as much turns it takes to conclude, or when the time is up. Both sides are actively speaking and listening during the debate.

Finally, summarizing arguments in the debate, judge or audience is somebody who will decide which group was more convincing.

Meaning there are that winner and loser, “I am right, you are wrong” effect. There is also a possibility for compromise and consensus as an outcome. Compromise provides mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both side, no winner or loser. Consensus involves an attempt to work with another side to find a win-win solution that satisfies both sides. Also, there is a possibility that certain individuals do not even believe in the argument that they are defending or trying to prove.

Therefore, question is, does that mean that the side which was more convincing represented the right choice and what is the right choice, or that side is just simply better in convincing? Our society is expecting from us to persuade others in what we believe. In school they teach us to be competitive, to debate with others. If we are not doing that or we cannot convince others, they will not take us seriously, because if you cannot convince others of something that you believe, then you do not really believe in that. That is the logic of our society that is the sign of weakness for the majority. Defending our points prevent us from listening others. Thing is that some of us simply do not want to convince others, in our beliefs, but rather coming together to truth. It is not about why we communicate but how?

Common knowledge has shown us that people, nations, individuals, are constantly connected, directly or indirectly, like a living organism, constantly in dialogue. Every action that we do to others has a reaction that is affecting us. It is written in the bible: “As you sow so shell you reap”, in Buddhism they say that is your Karma, or in modern world “What goes around comes around”. We have that tendency to cooperate with others and make changes. Individual can do so little, but in a pair or group, we can do amazing things together. We need each other's, so badly, our friends, families, groups, to create new ideas, new life. One thing is to communicate, even orang-utan knows that on some level, but to freely express your thoughts to another person and to receive the same back, during which you make some kind of rational selection and “distillation” that is a pure dialectic method. Dialectic is an art of conversation, exchanging the very best in us, between us, through dialogue. Dialectic is emerging from dialogue as fixation and reflection on the dialogical exchange. There are two ways using the dialectical method: Oral and written. Writing is premeditated, fixed and have only one path. Oral Dialog is flexible, provide an answer and can choose a path. According to Plato, dialectic is necessary to destroy incorrect thesis and attain thinkable being. In today's society there are norms how to communicate, with whom, what to share and what not. So many limitations, we did not have them when we were kids, society imposed that on us, we are not as free as we were sometimes, to simply and openly engage with others in dialogue. Those norms turn us against other, rather turn towards other. Society is in a crisis of dialogue, due to self-isolating, striving for simple dialogue but hardly reaching one. It is all about free flow between two individuals, but nothing good can arise without the ultimate good. For example, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:20). You already have it within you, only if you permit to be between you. When we have two independent individuals, that can live separated, but they decided to live together, because of love, great things can happen. Series of right questions and answer can provide us a good and truthful life, that is what will we get through dialectical method.

Courage to think critically?

Dialog of love,

To sum up, rhetoric is to convince, debate is to defend, dialectic is a way towards truth. I really believe that answer for every question; can be found in that art of conversation with others. The answer is in us and between us, but we need others to come to that realization together.