I think dialect is a different art than rhetoric, a tool with a different purpose.
I think our ability to trust or distrust, and our passions and emotions, are conveyers of important information. They are irrational, but not unreasonable.
It is, so to say, the dialectic of our ancestors. A sort of... genetic tradition.
That makes sense. It has to stay well-ordered, though. Our instincts and emotions often hint in the direction reason should go, but even there the intellect has to swing in and sort everything out.
Apologetics is rhetoric, not dialectic, by the way. That the highest form of argument.
Experience certainly bears this out. However logical faith or religion may be, some people just refuse to believe it.
I think more and more that some personal experience with Christ—often through other people—is necessary to win people over to the point where they can reason clearly about Christianity.
I often distrust my heart and stick to my head, and that has caused me much grief. My heart was saying something important. It was picking up on input that I couldn't rationally process and that I wasn't even consciously aware of.
It's like a sensor.
Esta é uma afirmação estranha. Primeiro que é evidente e não uma percepção pessoal o fato de que retórica e dialética são completamente diferentes. A teoria dos quatro discursos de Aristóteles demonstram isso. Mas de que dialética se está falando?
Sugiro ler o livro Aristóteles em nova perspectiva, de Olavo de Carvalho, para entender o status questionis.
