• rhudehssolf
    9
    Can a disrinction be made between rhetoric and propaganda ?
  • unenlightened
    5k
    Rhetoric is used by, for example, legal representatives in court to make the best possible case for their side of a dispute. They do not resort to falsehood or meaningless but emotive slogans, that would be propaganda. There are quite strict rules to allow the one and prevent the other in court though their interpretation is open to dispute as always.

    So, yes there is a big and important distinction based on the notion of truth, with blurred edges.
  • Baden
    10.6k
    Propaganda is a type of information. Rhetoric is a style of speech or writing. They overlap where the mode is speech or writing, the style is persuasive, the intent is to foster bias for a political group/ideology or power structure, and the content is misleading/contains falsehoods.

    So, the first distinction is of category (type of information vs mode of presentation of information). The second distinction is of content. While both seek to persuade, only propaganda is necessarily misleading and necessarily seeks to foster bias for a political grouping/ideology as opposed to simply a point of view. There's also a distinction of mode, rhetoric presumes speech or writing, propaganda can occur in other semiotic modes, pictures, signs etc.

    (Some caveats to the above if anyone wants to jump in and debate my take.)
  • Virgo Avalytikh
    177
    Can a disrinction be made between rhetoric and propaganda ?rhudehssolf

    Yes.
  • rhudehssolf
    9
    So i suppose you think of Rhetoric as an art something as a "noble" persuasion while propagnada "dishonorable" pesuasion based on indecent means of achieving the end goal.In that case every persuasion based on fallacies and other similar means can be called propaganda?If we agree on such a term for propaganda i think that we are at the risk of downgrading its severity.lets say if you were trying to shoot at me and i swayed you with my words and many rhetorical devices including any lies and fallacies would you call that propaganda?.In the same way even our society is based on persusaison,persuasuion of the citizens for obeyance of the laws,for faith in society and nation etc.If this persuasion is based on lies we just call it propaganda,The goverment is supposed firstly to protect its citizens,if it does so by Noble lies we would call that propaganda and actually good propaganda?
  • rhudehssolf
    9
    So Rhetoric can be decent and can be indicent and when its incident is called propaganda while when its decent its truth-telling persuasion.So if what im telling right now is based on lies is propaganda ?
  • Baden
    10.6k


    No, read again.
  • Baden
    10.6k
    Here's my one line def: Propaganda is (mis)information framed to foster bias in favor of a power structure or ideology.
  • rhudehssolf
    9
    That favor is confined to a limited amount of people or can it also be applief for the multitude?
  • Virgo Avalytikh
    177
    That favor is confined to a limited amount of people or can it also be applief for the multitude?rhudehssolf

    What
  • Baden
    10.6k
    And rhetoric: Rhetoric is a style of speech or writing that makes use of a set of explicit linguistic tools to persuade.



    Can you rephrase the question please?
  • rhudehssolf
    9
    i.e is propaganda beneficial in its strict sense for the common good.The notion of noble lies that do cause misinformation but benefit every one ?
  • rhudehssolf
    9
    So in its speech and writing form propaganda is best produced through rhetoric?
  • Baden
    10.6k


    Whether or not it's beneficial depends on the context and your ethical orientation. There might be utilitarian reasons for considering some types of propaganda beneficial, for example.

    So in its speech and writing form propaganda is best produced through rhetoric?rhudehssolf

    Again, it depends. Short catchphrases may work best in some situations. Polemics full of rhetorical devices in others.
  • unenlightened
    5k
    So i suppose you thinkrhudehssolf

    A standard rhetorical move. You make an argument that if I think X, this implies that I should accept Y. If Y does indeed follow from X, it is a legitimate move, and if not it is illegitimate. In this case you are introducing terms I have not used - 'noble' and 'dishonourable', as well as making a universal 'every persuasion based on fallacies and other similar means...' when I have explicitly remarked that even in the formal context of the courtroom, there are grey areas.

    I regard this as merely poor rhetoric on your part, not propaganda. You asked for a distinction, and you got one. but this does not imply that either term applies to all speech acts.
  • Tzeentch
    687
    Propaganda is misinformationBaden

    Maybe I am nitpicking here, but this is not the case. While some propaganda certainly is false, much of it is true information framed in a certain way. In fact, the most effective propaganda belongs to this category, precisely because it does not convey falsehoods and often goes unnoticed. Infamous propagandists like Goebbels knew all too well about this distinction.

    I would say that to the degree the rhetorician engages in honest, rational debate with his opponent, there is a clear distinction. The more a rhetorician uses linguistic or psychological tricks, or other kinds of manipulation, the lines between rhetoric and propaganda become more blurred.
  • Baden
    10.6k
    Maybe I am nitpicking here, but this is not the case. While some propaganda certainly is false, much of it is true information framed in a certain way.Tzeentch

    Yes, adjusted the definition.

    I would say that to the degree the rhetorician engages in honest, rational debate with his opponent, there is a clear distinction. The more a rhetorician uses linguistic or psychological tricks, or other kinds of manipulation, the lines between rhetoric and propaganda become more blurred.Tzeentch

    Ok, but for it to be propaganda other criteria must apply, such as support of a power structure/ideology.
  • NOS4A2
    3.5k


    Propaganda is much broader in scope because it employs images, music, statues and other artifacts, including rhetoric itself. So when the propaganda is limited to just rhetoric it becomes rhetoric. When that’s the case, the intention behind either may be all that’s left to differentiate between the two. Maybe something like rhetoric is intended to convince while propaganda is intended to control.
  • rhudehssolf
    9
    I see and accept the point made that propaganda can employ more means than rhetoric.

    Maybe something like rhetoric is intended to convince while propaganda is intended to controlNOS4A2

    I Think the difference of convincing rhetoric(wether decent or indicent) from propaganda intentented rhetoric is that the former is destroyed by the right of every man to not listen to it as hobbes said as oft as reason is against a man so oft will man be against reason.While the latter propaganda has that controlling or better coercing device that can bypass that obstacle
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.