Booth

==Booth, Wayne C. //Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.// 1971 (1921-2005) ==
 * prof of lit and rhet at U of Chicago and then Dean
 * Modern Dogma
 * Wants what Burke wants, but bigger. **He wants consubstantiality and identification. He thinks he can do that by getting rid of doubt (Descartes), going from I will believe nothing until it is beyond doubt to I will believe it unless you can disprove it. He wants to change the question to “Why would you not believe this?” **
 * A multiplicity of ways of knowing – describe disagreement as different ways of knowing. Instead of having a fight about what we each know, we will talk about HOW we know what we know.
 * Booth wants to find a way around corrosive skepticism –
 * Very platonic – wants to talk about it long enough so that there will be no conflict.
 * From //Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent // 1974 Addresses the question of what circumstances should cause one to change one’s mind, discussing what happens in situations where two diametrically opposed systems of belief are in argument.
 * His central example is an incident at U of C.
 * So, not just how we devise rhetoric but also how we should respond to it.
 * Why does no one listen to protesters? A world of futile babblers—loss of connection between prose and passion.
 * Section Motivism and the loss of good reason, sub, The crisis in our rhetoric—simplistic good/bad. Sub. When should I change my mind?
 * How should men work when they want to change minds, especially about value questions?
 * Sub. The factual “is” and the wishful “ought” distinction between what is and what ought to be. None of the ancients or enlightenments understood that there is no knowledge of values—cannot be reasoned. ( Really, I think Gorgias understood it) Only in the last century did the split become a truism. Sooo. We do need pathos.
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Argument between scientismics (Descartes etc) and Irrationalists (truth seekers)
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Says five kinds of modern dogma. Modernist dogma splits the world—fact vs. value Dogmas about methods (motivism), nature, scene, principles, and purpose.
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Acknowledges Aristotle’s causes and Burke's Pentad
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; background-color: transparent; color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: serif; font-family: serif; font-size: 16px; font-size: 16px; text-align: start; text-align: start; text-decoration: none; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; vertical-align: baseline;">Section 2. Bertrand Russell’s Rhetoric and the Dogmas of Doubt