Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Trump and truthful hyperbole + Trump and the Muslim ban

#1
C C Offline
Trump & Truthful Hyperbole
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=9080

EXCERPT: In "Art of the Deal" Donald Trump calls one of his rhetorical tools “truthful hyperbole.” He both defends and praises it as “an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion.” As a promoter, Trump made extensive use of this technique. Now he is using it in his bid for President.

Hyperbole is an extravagant overstatement and it can be either positive or negative in character. When describing himself and his plans, Trump makes extensive use of positive hyperbole: he is the best and every plan of his is the best. He also makes extensive use of negative hyperbole—often to a degree that seems to cross over from exaggeration to fabrication. In any case, his concept of “truthful hyperbole” is well worth considering.

From a logical standpoint, “truthful hyperbole” is an impossibility. This is because hyperbole is, by definition, not true. Hyperbole is not a merely a matter of using extreme language. After all, extreme language might accurately describe something. [...] Because of this, the phrase “truthful hyperbole” says the same thing as “accurate exaggeration”, which nicely reveals the problem.

Trump, a brilliant master of rhetoric, is right about the rhetorical value of hyperbole--it can have considerable psychological force. It, however, lacks logical force--it provides no logical reason to accept a claim. [...] I will now turn to the ethics of hyperbole....



Trump & The Muslim Ban
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=9082

EXCERPT: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has found what seems to be a winning strategy: when a poll shows that he might be losing his lead, he makes an outrageous statement. His poll numbers then rise. On December 7, 2015 Trump said that the United States should forbid all Muslims from entering the country.

In making his statement, Trump asserted that “…the hatred is beyond comprehension” and that the ban must last “…until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses…” He apparently thinks that Muslims “…believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.” Since Trump is the leading Republican candidate, his remarks carry significant weight. As such, they demand serious consideration.

There are three main areas in which Trump’s proposal needs to be assessed. These are the legal, the moral and the practical....
Reply
#2
Yazata Online
(Dec 12, 2015 02:10 AM)C C Wrote: EXCERPT: In "Art of the Deal" Donald Trump calls one of his rhetorical tools “truthful hyperbole.” He both defends and praises it as “an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion.” As a promoter, Trump made extensive use of this technique. Now he is using it in his bid for President.

There are famous philosophers that made their careers through the use of "truthful hyperbole". Thomas Kuhn comes to mind. The idea that adherents of different "paradigms" live in "different worlds" is an example. If that was literally true, then how could they physically interact, bumping into each other in the hall? The idea of the incommensurability of paradigms results from that little exaggeration. In fact  the idea of 'paradigms' itself seems to be a hyperbolic restatement of the idea of 'existing preconceptions' that nobody prior to Kuhn would have disagreed with.

Quote:From a logical standpoint, “truthful hyperbole” is an impossibility. This is because hyperbole is, by definition, not true.

I don't think that's correct.

Quote:Hyperbole is not a merely a matter of using extreme language. After all, extreme language might accurately describe something. [...] Because of this, the phrase “truthful hyperbole” says the same thing as “accurate exaggeration”, which nicely reveals the problem.

Doesn't the whole idea of exaggeration and hyperbole imply that some truth is being overstated? If there was no truth there at all, then it wouldn't be hyperbole or exaggeration, it would simply be a false statement.

Quote:Trump, a brilliant master of rhetoric, is right about the rhetorical value of hyperbole--it can have considerable psychological force. It, however, lacks logical force--it provides no logical reason to accept a claim.

Political rhetoric often consists of exaggerated conclusions stated hyperbolically: "Greedy capitalists", "Bush lied", "racist" etc. If there's any logical argument that justifies saying these kind of things, it's only provided later, if at all.  

Quote:On December 7, 2015 Trump said that the United States should forbid all Muslims from entering the country.

Only temporarily, until some credible and effective method is found to screen them for radical Islamist views and militant connections. The idea that Trump wants to "forbid all Muslims from entering the country", without the qualifiers, is a perfect example of the sort of politically motivated "truthful hyperbole" that the author was attacking above.

Quote:In making his statement, Trump asserted that “…the hatred is beyond comprehension”

The events of 9-11, lining up prisoners on a beach and beheading them simply because they were Christians, the Bataclan massacre, destroying irreplaceable ancient historical sites because they were relics of non-Islamic civilizations, the killing of Yezedi males in captured Sinjar and the selling of females into sexual slavery, and countless more examples... suggest that Trump's remark has considerable truth.

Quote:and that the ban must last “…until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses…”

Certainly until we are able to conduct proper security screenings. At the present time, nobody really knows how to do that. So again, one can argue that there's considerable truth to what Trump says.

Quote:He apparently thinks that Muslims “…believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

That's a non-sequitur, a speculation about what the author believes Trump's motivations are.

In reality, some Muslims do believe only in jihad. The fact of suicide attacks speaks to that, since the attackers are putting jihad above life itself. But Trump didn't say that all Muslims believe only in jihad. To suggest that he did is the author's own "truthful hyperbole", I guess.
Reply
#3
Magical Realist Online
Quote:Only temporarily, until some credible and effective method is found to screen them for radical Islamist views and militant connections. The idea that Trump wants to "forbid all Muslims from entering the country", without the qualifiers, is a perfect example of the sort of politically motivated "truthful hyperbole" that the author was attacking above.

No..its not hyperbole to claim Trump wants to forbid Muslims from entering the country even if its just temporarily. He WANTS to forbid Muslims from entering the country indefinitely, and would do so if he were president. It's an ignorant solution to the problem of terrorism. Almost all terrorists are men too. Should we ban them from entering the country too? Why not?

Quote:Trump, a brilliant master of rhetoric, is right about the rhetorical value of hyperbole--it can have considerable psychological force.

I wouldn't call it brilliant rhetoric insulting whole classes of people just to increase your ratings among bigots. I call it pandering to the lowest common denominator.I also would call it demogoguery, manipulating people's reactionary fear of terrorism in the current news cycle towards one's political advantage.
Reply
#4
C C Offline
In pop-market culture, "bad boys" have had a history of both surviving and reaping rewards from saying, doing, and even being jailed for things which would damage the careers of other celebrities. Trump seems to enjoy a similar immunity as some loose-gun "hipster magnate" (albeit on the gray-hair side).

His controversial comments and promises from months ago would have immediately sunk the ship of conventional candidates, much less what's transpired in the media since then. Perhaps contributing partly to that public conception: His ambiguous oscillations between democrat and republican affiliations / donations of the past (a slot instability which political cynics and the pragmatically detached might relate to), his stint as a "reality show" host on TV (never did watch that), and a history of narcissist and decisive aggressor remarks tossed off the cuff with as causal an unconcern about consequences as the ramblings of a "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll" Metal Lord in a different context.

Of course, part of his immunity or the "flak bounces right off him" superpower might be due to media people and opposing forces mitigating their counter-attacks in hope that he does become the Repub candidate for POTUS. Except that the barrage does seem as ample as ever; just doesn't have the usual effect in causing _x_ to fade into the woodwork of self-suicidal implosion. Providing his own funding would be another, in not having to cater to fears of it drying up due to growing skittishness and horror from "concerned" or "respected" sources.

If by some miracle Trump did become president, one wonders if his outspoken daring and its popularity spikes might somehow unhinge constitutional processes enough that he became the US equivalent of an undislodgeable Putin and the latter's nationalism ("Russia isn't a lifeboat for the rest of the world and a beachhead for its social and alarmist projects" unilateralism). Unlikely, though, since there were surely earlier American periods less framed by deep historical tradition and far more susceptible to Caesar syndrome than this one. Though the reverence for founding formalism as immutable has been judicially eroding.
Reply
#5
Yazata Online
Do hostile political opinions about Trump have anything to do with philosophy?

I read the board simply for enjoyment. I don't enjoy arguing about politics. The subject is too angry, irrational and divisive. If the board isn't fun, then there won't be any reason for me to participate.

My decidedly mixed views about Trump are complex and would take a whole essay to express. I'm not even thinking of going there.
Reply
#6
C C Offline
(Dec 13, 2015 04:14 PM)Yazata Wrote: Do hostile political opinions about Trump have anything to do with philosophy? I read the board simply for enjoyment. I don't enjoy arguing about politics. The subject is too angry, irrational and divisive. If the board isn't fun, then there won't be any reason for me to participate. My decidedly mixed views about Trump are complex and would take a whole essay to express. I'm not even thinking of going there.


I feel Trump's ability to survive this era's orthogloxy and "discourse etiquette" (among other factors) would be worth exploring, as he's kind of a rare phenomenon for this time. But as you say, politics is an area of frenzied public discord where even the subjectivity of those who claim a socially, emotionally, and ideologically detached neutrality to their profession becomes exposed.

Politics certainly wrecked the old A&A group on Webtv, and anybody who might have previously entertained the notion that atheists were all southpaw to grazing center was soon rescued from that trope by Smokey John, Ken Dine, etc.

With all those past inter-denominational conflicts and discriminating properties among Christians having receded significantly among the newer generations, I guess politics has had to absorb and carry the brunt of the broad "us version them" universal passion or need in humans, magnifying the hornet's nest it already was.
Reply
#7
Magical Realist Online
I have no problem debating politics or religion here. People tend to get passionate about such issues. But passion is good, as long as it is restrained with a modicum of civility.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)