• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Discussion about "Rhetoric fortress"

Physics131

Physics131

R151ng 5tar
Donator
Coding advisor
Intro:
I recently came across the concept of the "rhetoric fortress," and it struck me as both intriguing and controversial.
From what I’ve read, the term often carries a negative connotation, but I wonder if it can have positive uses as well.
I'd love to hear your perspectives on this! 😊

Questions:
  1. What is your opinion about rhetoric fortresses?
  2. Can this concept be used positively, or is it inherently problematic?
  3. Should it be used at all, or should we strive to avoid it?
  4. In what situations might it be appropriate or inappropriate to use this technique?
Definition (based on ChatGPT):
A rhetoric fortress is a communication style or argumentative approach designed to be impenetrable to critique. This involves preemptively addressing or dismissing counterpoints, making alternative perspectives seem invalid, or using complexity to deter further debate.
Click to expand...

My Thoughts:
I believe the concept of a rhetoric fortress has both positive and negative potential.
  • Positive Uses: It can be valuable in deeply analyzing a theory, as it forces one to think about every possible scenario or condition where the theory might fail.
  • Negative Uses: It becomes problematic when used to dismiss counterpoints, invalidate alternative perspectives, deter debate through complexity, or diminish the importance of others arguments.
One major disadvantage is that such arguments often become overly dense and harder to grasp.
Perhaps it’s better to aim for simplicity, addressing exceptions without adding unnecessary complexity.

Additionally, I don’t think rhetoric fortresses are well-suited for casual discussions or everyday conversations.
They seem more fitting for specialized topics or academic contexts.

I also have mixed feelings about rhetoric in general.
While it can distort facts, it also has the power to emphasize and clarify important points.
However, whenever rhetoric is added, the information presented is inevitably modified in some way.
This raises an interesting question: does rhetoric inherently shift discussions away from objectivity?

Conclusion:
These are my initial thoughts, and I’d love to hear your perspectives.
How do you see the role of rhetoric fortresses in communication?
Are they a tool for clarity or a barrier to understanding?
 
Last edited:
The way I see it, a rhetoric fortress is an inherently defensive mechanism born out of fear of having one's beliefs challenged. And by definition, it is an approach that strives to, as our fellow GPT says, "be impenetrable to critique".

As such, I think it's inherently flawed in the discourse about dissecting a hypothesis in any meaningfully effective way. The very foundation of real science is that it is not only able, but willing, to undergo change based on critique. It factors critique among the things that help it develop. It needs to be the opposite of "impenetrable to critique". Having that in mind, I don't think there's any positive aspect of using that approach when trying to have a constructive, objective discussion about some complex topic.

They are a barrier to understanding for the one that erects them, and a barrier to communication for the one that tries to assault them. As such, they're a lose-lose kind of thing.

Cheers for the thought-provoking questions <3
 
Well, I thing that some (especially in political arguments) people might actually be using a Gish Gallop and calling it this. Some.

The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available.
 
Nydex said:
The way I see it, a rhetoric fortress is an inherently defensive mechanism born out of fear of having one's beliefs challenged. And by definition, it is an approach that strives to, as our fellow GPT says, "be impenetrable to critique".

As such, I think it's inherently flawed in the discourse about dissecting a hypothesis in any meaningfully effective way. The very foundation of real science is that it is not only able, but willing, to undergo change based on critique. It factors critique among the things that help it develop. It needs to be the opposite of "impenetrable to critique". Having that in mind, I don't think there's any positive aspect of using that approach when trying to have a constructive, objective discussion about some complex topic.

They are a barrier to understanding for the one that erects them, and a barrier to communication for the one that tries to assault them. As such, they're a lose-lose kind of thing.

Cheers for the thought-provoking questions <3
Click to expand...

That makes sense.
If we would label rhetoric fortress as good then it would mean that we would have to consider all aspects of it good.
And if we would remove all negative aspects or mechanics from rhetoric fortress then what remains is not a rhetoric fortress anymore.
This means also for me that a theory directly looses its worth when any of the negative mechanics are being used.
The scenario where one would use this mechanics because of fearing to provide bad content would contradict the value of the theory provided.

Based on what I wrote now there is a difference between a profound researched theory or text leaving no exceptions with a rhetoric fortress.
Thinking about possible exceptions in a theory and designing the theory good and understandable does not imply a rethoric fortress.
What do you all think?

brokedownpalace10 said:
Well, I thing that some (especially in political arguments) people might actually be using a Gish Gallop and calling it this. Some.

The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting point.
I did not really had political arguments in my mind.
Instead I was more thinking about theories or texts.
In a philosophical theory I very often have the impression that the writer makes a statement and tries to contradict his own theory and provides a fix for his own contradiction.
Which results to a "stronger" theory.
But if it would be a rhetorical fortress then the content would not be marketed.

Your reply also brought me to the thought that rhetorical fortress is a composition of mechanics.
And I think all mechanics are bad except the exception resulution part.

The main reason why i created this thread was that I found this term and researched what it means.
Then I reflected if I am using it in my texts or where I saw this concept.
If it is bad then it should not be used.
And the only part I have been using was also the exception resolution part.
 
Last edited:
Words to make up an impressive stronghold ...
Such goofy creatures we are!

Language hopefully serves the function of being ... connective tissue, I'd hope?
Not an armor of sorts.

Perhaps I'm being too naive.
 
I find that definition funny and can see how subsequent opinions of the "rhetorical fortress" can be see in a negative light in a negative connotation.

However...

"communication style or argumentative approach designed to be impenetrable to critique"
Isn't this what you want when trying to develop a theory or a prose about something? If it's spot on then it is "impenetrable to critique." It's the attempts at critique that show whether it is impenetrable or not.

"This involves preemptively addressing or dismissing counterpoints"
The "preepmtively addressing part is what gets me. So thinking ahead about counter-arguments is a bad thing now? If I can, to substantiate my idea, will always highlight what counter-arguments there may be and why I find them invalid or why they don't negate a prior proposition of my own.
And I agree with the last point as long as the counterpoints weren't dissected.

"making alternative perspectives seem invalid"
But how is one that is using a "rhetorical fortress" doing this. If they're simply saying things like, "no, that's wrong," without further discourse then, okay. However, if an alternative perspective is shown to be invalid, then why is this a problem.
This part of the definition is too vague for me.

"using complexity to deter further debate"
It's only deterred if people stop debating with the person using the "rhetorical fortress." If someone seems to be using complexity in this way, address it, pick one part of their statement and go from there. I don't see how anything is deterred here.

So my issue is with the definition of this idea. It can be good or bad, but some of this reflects good idea building and debating. I feel that this definition somewhat reflects a tinge of anti-intellectualism...

One love
 
MAGMA17 said:
Isn’t our mind part of reality?
Click to expand...
In reality, it might be a bit more complex than that! 😂
Welcome to word land, where you are in a nascent astral space.
Everything is so cozy and makes sense! Or will soon! We love making sense. Sense for everyone!! Print these out and hand them around! Free copies! Yes! New sense converts! he he...

Oh! look! that one is traveling very fast through dream space. what a fast little minnow! oh my gosh, little minnow knows almost everything! Little minnow is almost sensed-Out!! everything makes sense to little minnow... little minnow is going ~ INSANE. little minnow is, outgrowing the Sense-Pool !!! 🐟🎉🎉 oh my gosh!!!! Little is swimming so fast, suddenly the floor is rising, and little minnow flies out of the water, through the air! and landing onto the shores of reality ~ little minnow had never been outside the Pool of Sense. Where am I?? Everything was changing, like a song... La La La... La La La...

That is the story of Little Minnow and the Sense Pool I guess

Sorry I should not be in a philosophy discussion thread xD haha


I'm not going to be texting as much soon, since I'll be studying silence...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom