Tom,Thanks for the post.I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are. That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again, so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the eventual communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry than rhetoric.My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed.The following statement of yours is interesting:"... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an infinite universe."What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our assertions in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains this well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric. However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on new information.Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less probable and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation just is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the odds.When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic, and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. The whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live (self) righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera.In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is, through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their solutions to that problem, however, are quite different.Best,Mike
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.