(About a 5 minute read)
The European Enlightenment laid the philosophical foundation of today’s representative democracies by coining the notion (or at least by secularizing the Christian notion) that people were basically more or less equally rational — obvious cases of madness, contrariness, and American citizenship notwithstanding.
Of course, the clear implication was that, if people were basically rational, then they were under no obligation to simply swallow whatever they were told to swallow by some authority or powerful elite. Instead, they had a natural right, by virtue of being rational, to weigh matters for themselves and arrive at a just and fair conclusion
that Teresums is insufferable in those matters all on their own.
Obviously, that notion became a basis for justifying republics and representative democracies. To be sure, you can justify those things without resort to asserting “epistemic equality”, but it’s harder to do. If some people are naturally much less rational than others — that would amount to saying, they are born to be followers of their “betters”.
Very few of us know all of that today, or at least, very few of us have thought about it. Even less thought about today is the somewhat more practical role reasoning with folks plays in republics and representative democracies.
To illustrate, consider a biologist and an creationist debating whether or not to include evolution in high school biology courses. The biologist rationally lays out his or her facts, along with their reasoning, but the creationist immovably responds with pseudo-facts and fallacious logic. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Although that sort of thing never happens in the real world, ’tis not the point here. The point is: How could the two possibly reach an agreement about what to do?
Well, there are other methods besides rational persuasion. The public relations and advertising industries have amply demonstrated that you can take all the rational reasoning — all of it – out of persuasion and still persuade.
But when you do, you are in serious risk of soon ending up in bonkersville — or, as we call it in America, the Presidency. That is simply not the optimal foundation on which to base laws and public policies — for any of a dozen reasons. The further you depart from reality based persuasion, and the more you indulge in merely emotional persuasion, the faster you create some of the conditions for rule by an oligarchy or dictator.
“Vote for Stanislov! Forget the fake news he wants to crush your skull under his fat butt! Stanislov will put weed in every pot!”
Beyond that, if even merely emotional persuasion breaks down, then one is left with only heinous means of forcing people to agree upon what to do, or to comply with what is done. Sooner or later, they’ll be tanks in the streets. So I think it can be seen, there are advantages to rational persuasion.
Unfortunately, rational persuasion alone seldom if ever works. Both nearly universal personal experience and the sciences confirm that. However, most people blame the fact on the fundamental irrationality of human nature. In truth, I think it would be a bit more accurate to notice that “pure rational persuasion” is missing something. Namely, any motivators.
Depending on how you slice and dice them, you could write a book on motivators, but here we can boil them down to just two categories: Fears and desires. Not just “pleasure and pain” — some folks seek pain and avoid pleasure. Those categories won’t do here. But fears and desires pretty much cover all the bases.
Motivators can be so effective, you scarcely need anything else. “Your house is on fire! Quick! Chug these beers so you can pee on it!” But we’ve already gone over a good reason why they ought to be combined with rational persuasion in a republic or representational democracy.
I do not suspect any of the above — except maybe a minor point or two — is unknown to anyone, but I’ve laid it all out here in the hope it might be useful to further discussion, and because I like to write. As a bonus, if you wish to finesse your persuasive talents and abilities to rationally persuade people
to hop in bed with you, then see my four volume work, The Epistemology of Carnal Knowledge I would recommend you study Ben Franklin’s techniques.
Franklin was a master at the art of rational persuasion, but he was a bit under-appreciated for it even in his day, because he was such an habitually self-effacing man, that he routinely gave credit for his own ideas to whomever he was persuading to adopt them. That self-effacement was, of course, one of his techniques.
You can’t go wrong studying Franklin.