Genuine Dialogue and a Rhetoric of Virtue Daniel Anthony Grano Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2003 The means of ignorance: genuine dialogue and a rhetoric of virtue Daniel Anthony Grano Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Recommended Citation Grano, Daniel Anthony, "The means of ignorance: genuine dialogue and a rhetoric of virtue" (2003). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 3079. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3079 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. THE MEANS OF IGNORANCE: GENUINE DIALOGUE AND A RHETORIC OF VIRTUE A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Communication Studies by Daniel A. Grano B.A., University of Memphis, 1995 M.M.C., Louisiana State University, 1997 August 2003 DEDICATION This is for Dee, who sustained me with love, support, patience, and turkey sandwiches. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A special thanks goes to my mother and father, Lucille and Anthony Grano, for teaching me the values reflected in this study, and what it means to work hard on things that matter. I am also grateful for a blessed relationship with my brother, Ken. My deepest gratitude goes to Dr. Andrew King, whose encouragement and guidance throughout writing this has allowed me to say what I wanted to say; over the past several years, what he has taught me about being a scholar is second only to what he has taught me about being a person. I must also thank Dr. Kenneth Zagacki, another deeply influential voice in my scholarly development, whose impact on this dissertation is apparent to several of its readers. The rest of my committee’s contributions mean a lot to me on a personal and professional level: through a continuing dialogue on a broad range of ideas, Dr. Ruth Laurion Bowman has been a source of creativity, courage, and interpretive bliss; Dr. Laura Sells has influenced my teaching, given me the means to challenge my own ideas, and showed me that Foucault and the rest of the posties aren’t so impenetrable after all; finally, Dr. Ellis Sandoz’s teaching and comments have strengthened my foundational ideas and my faith in the most worthwhile pursuits. The importance of my “supplemental” education cannot be overlooked. Here I must thank all of my friends and colleagues in the Department of Communication Studies who helped me along the way, especially Shaun Treat, Jon Croghan, and Christi Moss. Through countless conversations with me on everything from rhetoric to Zen to trout, Shaun and Jon have been central in my ascent to Ph.D. level ignorance. Christi has done a great job of keeping me in line, and at times, of keeping me afloat. Finally, I am grateful to Dr. Mark Williams, for all the e-mails, advice, and friendship. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... ...ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... ..iii ABSTRACT............................................................................................................... .. vi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. ... 1 Problem................................................................................................................. ... 1 Response: Socratic Ignorance................................................................................ ... 5 Genuine Dialogue as Enacted Virtue ..................................................................... 10 Enacted Virtue as Craft ......................................................................................... 16 Ignorance as a Mediated Solution.......................................................................... 18 Dialogic Community ............................................................................................. 21 Preview of Chapters .............................................................................................. 23 CHAPTER 2. IGNORANCE AND A RHETORICAL ETHICS OF VIRTUE...... 25 Overview of Communication Ethics on Local and Transcendent Mediation........... 26 Contemporary Moral Philosophy and Ignorance.................................................... 32 CHAPTER 3. THE ETHICS OF CONTINGENCY AND IGNORANCE ............. 41 Introduction to Contingency and Ignorance ........................................................... 41 Uncertain Time in Narrative Theories of Moral Rhetoric....................................... 44 Immanent Versus Transcendent Narrative: An Evaluative Basis for Contingency .................................................................... 50 CHAPTER 4. IMMANENT CONTINGENCY AND THE RESTRICTION OF DIALOGUE ..................................................... 62 Rorty’s Liberal Utopia and a New Moral Vocabulary............................................ 63 Moral Discourse in Rorty’s Public Sphere ............................................................. 72 CHAPTER 5. CONTINGENCY AS UNCERTAINTY: VIRTUE AND ARGUMENTS FROM DEFINITION .............................................. 77 Introduction to Arguments From Definition........................................................... 78 Socrates’ Argument From Definition..................................................................... 80 The Priority of Definitional Knowledge Debate: Resolving the “Socratic Fallacy” ........................................................................... 86 Aristotle’s Practice of Virtue Definition ................................................................ 92 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 100 CHAPTER 6. THE MEANS OF IGNORANCE: SOCRATES’ DISAVOWAL OF KNOWLEDGE.................................................. 102 Socrates’ Disavowal of Knowledge ....................................................................... 105 The Sincerity of the Disavowal.............................................................................. 109 iv Socrates’ Claims to Know ..................................................................................... 123 The Elenchos and Moral Uncertainty..................................................................... 127 Conclusion: Ignorance and Genuine Dialogue ....................................................... 131 CHAPTER 7. IGNORANCE AS A DEFICIT OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE DEPARTURE FROM DIALOGUE......................................... 134 Nicholas of Cusa’s “Learned Ignorance” ............................................................... 137 John Rawls and Justice Behind the “Veil of Ignorance”......................................... 142 Modesty and Ignorance: The Problem of Relational Sincerity and Self-Knowledge ............................................................................... 152 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 156 CHAPTER 8. PIETY, IGNORANCE, AND THE ENACTMENT OF VIRTUE: THE EXAMPLE OF PLATO’S EUTHYPHRO AND APOLOGY ... 159 Defining Socratic Piety.......................................................................................... 161 Piety as Enacted in the Apology............................................................................. 168 CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................ 173 Future Research and the Issue of Praxis ................................................................ 174 Catholic Social Teaching.................................................................................. 176 Medical Ignorance in Pedagogy and Practice.................................................... 180 Contingent, Ignorant Conclusions.......................................................................... 183 Implications .......................................................................................................... 188 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 194 VITA.......................................................................................................................... 201 v ABSTRACT Aimed at core problems of contemporary moral rhetoric - pluralistic argument, incommensurable disagreement on ordering terms, and a theoretical move away from essence to relativism - this study is an attempt to restore rhetoric as an art capable of investigating and positing terms of order and being. This restoration relies upon viewing rhetoric as a practice of epistemic mediation between the experiential and language-based knowledge of the local, and the perfected knowledge of the Absolute. I propose characteristically Socratic notions of contingency and ignorance as the bases for this mediated approach. As a recognition of what is unknown and uncertain in relation to the Absolute, contingency and ignorance promote rhetoric as “genuine dialogue,”