Rhetoric isn't about finding truth, though. It's ontologically and axiologically neutral. Dialectics, in the socratic or hegelian senses, are ontologically committed. It's impossible to meaningfully speak about rhetoric as in tandem with ethics. You need a whole new rhetorical theory and standard on the order of hegel.
Rhetoric, as you're stating it, seems to simply prefer a democratic regression to the mean. You say CRT, for instance, started as a reasoned deliberation, but CRT thinks reasoning is a western construct. In substance, therefore, it can't ever have been that. In the ontologically neutral form it may have, and I think that shallowness is exactly how these ideas get accepted by the majority. Most people aren't taught in universities to think about these things and engage them in a substantial manner. I think it's a precept that liberalism is ontologically neutral to have a coherent thought process on liberal capitalism and democracy, but people do need substance and we don't need to find out every two decades that the biggest things in academia are specicidal or genocidal by implication (or explication after the institutions are captured).
I do look forward to the book. I think historicisms should really replace mission statements, and I think university histories are sorely underdone. I appreciate your work. Thank you.
Rhetoric isn't about finding truth, though. It's ontologically and axiologically neutral. Dialectics, in the socratic or hegelian senses, are ontologically committed. It's impossible to meaningfully speak about rhetoric as in tandem with ethics. You need a whole new rhetorical theory and standard on the order of hegel.
Rhetoric, as you're stating it, seems to simply prefer a democratic regression to the mean. You say CRT, for instance, started as a reasoned deliberation, but CRT thinks reasoning is a western construct. In substance, therefore, it can't ever have been that. In the ontologically neutral form it may have, and I think that shallowness is exactly how these ideas get accepted by the majority. Most people aren't taught in universities to think about these things and engage them in a substantial manner. I think it's a precept that liberalism is ontologically neutral to have a coherent thought process on liberal capitalism and democracy, but people do need substance and we don't need to find out every two decades that the biggest things in academia are specicidal or genocidal by implication (or explication after the institutions are captured).
I do look forward to the book. I think historicisms should really replace mission statements, and I think university histories are sorely underdone. I appreciate your work. Thank you.