Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent
When should I change my mind? What can I believe and what must I doubt? In this new "philosophy of good reasons" Wayne C. Booth exposes five dogmas of modernism that have too often inhibited efforts to answer these questions. Modern dogmas teach that "you cannot reason about values" and that "the job of thought is to doubt whatever can be doubted," and they leave those who accept them crippled in their efforts to think and talk together about whatever concerns them most. They have willed upon us a "befouled rhetorical climate" in which people are driven to two self-destructive extremes—defenders of reason becoming confined to ever narrower notions of logical or experimental proof and defenders of "values" becoming more and more irresponsible in trying to defend the heart, the gut, or the gonads.
Booth traces the consequences of modernist assumptions through a wide range of inquiry and action: in politics, art, music, literature, and in personal efforts to find "identity" or a "self." In casting doubt on systematic doubt, the author finds that the dogmas are being questioned in almost every modern discipline. Suggesting that they be replaced with a rhetoric of "systematic assent," Booth discovers a vast, neglected reservoir of "good reasons"—many of them known to classical students of rhetoric, some still to be explored. These "good reasons" are here restored to intellectual respectability, suggesting the possibility of widespread new inquiry, in all fields, into the question, "When should I change my mind?"
What people are saying - Write a review
When I first read this book back in the early 80's I hated it, because Booth seemed to me to be a "miserable accomdator." Nowadays I find myself in agreement - "Why has being reasonable become so disdained in our culture? Whatever happened to the notion that 'Reasonable men can differ'?"
My ideological furies declined over the years - I was still a (principled, rather than "greedy") capital-L Libertarian at that time? (LOL)
And now, in the year 2016, Booth's criticisms seem exceptionally perceptive and relevant in an era of "multi-culturalism" in which fervent denunciation has become the first tool of resort in the practice of what is no longer rhetoric, "the practice of persuasive argument," but instead an exchange of brickbats - with the barrage from "The Bombards of Theory Emplaced upon the Heights of Academia" preceding a translation into AdSpeak of "theoretical findings" accompanied by hopeful prayers conveyed by lobbyists to legislators that those soundbites be back-translated into the corpus of law as complex narratives of abusive over-control.
"Well worth the reading." - barmayden AnneRose Blayk