Quora Answer: What is the Clear Difference between Tautology & Pleonasm?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What is the clear difference between tautology and pleonasm?” 

In rhetoric, a tautology is a statement that repeats an idea, in words or phrases.  The word was coined in Greek from ταὐτός, “the same” and λόγος, “word”, and transmitted through 3^rd Century Latin tautologia and French tautologie.  It first entered in English in the 16^th century.  The use of the term, “logical tautology” was introduced into English by Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein, the Austrian-British philosopher, in 1919. 

There is a difference between what we consider a literary tautology and a logical one.  A literary tautology is not inherently true, while a logical tautology always.  For example, if we say, “That person is either a man or a woman”, that is true. 

Examples of a literary tautology include this this quote from William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”: “To be or not to be, that is the question.”  This is among the most famous examples. 

Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Raven” has this: 

“But the fact is I was napping,

And so gently you came rapping,

And so faintly you came tapping,

Tapping at my chamber door.” 

Another example is George Bernard Shaw’s “Pygmalion”, where he wrote, “I’m willing to tell you.  I’m wanting to tell you.  I’m waiting to tell you.”  Here, it is in the form of an alliterative triad. 

On the other hand, pleonasm, is redundancy in linguistic expression.  The word itself is from Ancient Greek πλεονασμός, pleonasmós, derived from πλέον, pleon, “to be in excess”.  This makes is a form of tautology in rhetoric.  The repetition may be an emphasis, a redundancy of language, or an established convention that crept into the language. 

An example of pleonic emphasis would be William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”: “This was the most unkindest cut of all.”  Here, the emphasis is the nature of the cut, that not only was it fatal in the sense of mortality, but fatal to the relationship, the betrayal of someone Gaius Julius Caesar considered the closest to him. 

And then we have John Milton’s “Paradise Lost”: 

“From that day mortal, and this happie state

Shalt loose, expell’d from hence into a world

Of woe and sorrow.” 

In terms of redundancy of language, we have phrases such as “difficult dilemma”, “direct confrontation”, and “end result”. 

There are terms that seem redundant, but are not for legal or academic reasons.  Examples include terms such as “added bonus”, where the implication is that this bonus is in addition to other benefits already given, or “free gift” where the implication is that there are no terms and conditions attached.  They have become established conventions in language.

Quora Answer: What is the Best Way to Convince Someone of Your Point of View in Political Discussions?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What is the best way to convince someone of your point of view, particularly in political discussions?” 

There is no best way to convince anyone of anything in any discussion.  There are methods that may work, depending on the circumstances, the person involved, and the issue itself.  And there are positions that are so fundamental to the sense of self that the person will not budge from that position.  That being said, there are a few techniques that may be applied, often used in negotiations, to gain a favourable response.  There is no value in applying them in any casual discussion.  This is used to extract formal concessions and agreements. 

In any discussion, where there is a need to persuade the other party that we share common ground, the first hurdle is to move them psychologically from their side of the table to ours.  This is subtle, and constant work.  The first is to find common ground.  We find this by the use of allusions to find points of agreement in popular culture, music, hobbies.  This inclines the other side towards us.  Another method is to get the other side to do a small favour, such as paying for the coffee, lighting a cigarette or even borrowing coins for the vending machine.  When an opponent does you a small favour, it creates a cognitive, and they convince themselves that they are actually inclined towards you.  All this is before the discussion. 

In the course of the actual discussion, the most common rhetorical trap is to repeat and reframe.  We repeat their contention, and then reframe it slightly when you do so, such that it seems their position is closer to ours than we realise.  If the negotiation team is experienced, this is not easily done.  That is why we play the long game, and fill the agenda with softballs they can easily give in, or we can easily agree to.  When their attention span is diminished due to tiredness, then we start to do this, insisting on going over the clauses over and over again, feigning lack of understanding, and then reframing it. 

Finally, the point of any discussion, this negotiation, is to get something from the other side.  An experienced team will be quite aware of how this is done, and they will be playing the same game.  People do not like to be told what to believe; they need to be convinced this is their idea.  They can be moved emotionally through inclination or disinclination.  It is a lot of work to get people to like us, especially when they have nothing in common with us.  It is a lot easier to work with it when they fear us, or even hate us.  Emotional people are not logical people, and are the easiest to manipulate.  This is done by a bait and switch.  We give them a position, and let them work towards it by seeming intransigent and unyielding.  Finally, we agree to it for a “small concession”, which is what we originally wanted. 

I am not in the business of getting people to agree with me.  In am in the business of winning.  Discussions for the sake of getting an agreement on matters of opinions are about the ego.  There is no gain in feeding our own egos.  Any discussions is to extract something that advances our own agenda.

Quora Answer: What is a Rhetorical Function?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What is a rhetorical function?” 

A rhetorical function is a process of creating a cogent, coherent argument in academic writing, or for public speaking.  The rhetorical function of the act, the person, or the object refers to the point it makes in reference to the intended argument.  The rhetorical function is part of a wider rhetorical strategy tailored to the intended audience, for a specific intent, in order to maximise the call to action. 

An example of rhetorical function is the choice of words to describe someone, with consideration of its positive or negative connotations to elicit a feeling or opinion from the audience.  For example, you could describe a man as looking sinister, or you could say he looked dark, and the context of choice of further words would shape the audience reaction to him. 

Another example of rhetorical function is the use of the alliterative triad to subtly emphasise a position by reiterating it in subsequent sentences and clauses.  It draws attention to the point, and paints a wider, expansive picture to set the stage for a grand call to action.

Quora Answer: What is a Non Sequitur Argument?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What is a non sequitur argument?” 

“Non sequitur”, from the Latin “it does not follow”, is a logical fallacy.  Aristotle wrote a treatise on deductive reasoning, Ἀναλυτικὰ Πρότερα, translated into Latin as Analytica Priora.  In English, we know this work as “Prior Analytics”.  In it, he covered several types of logical fallacies, including the non sequitur argument. 

For example, if a dog is an animal, therefore, all dogs are animals.  If all dogs are animals, therefore, all animals are dogs.  This type of non sequitur is known as affirming the consequent.  Even were the premise and the conclusion to hold true, the consequence is not predicated on the premise.  It would be a coincidence. 

Taking this further, another example of a non sequitur argument would be the claim that since dogs are animals, and cats are animals, therefore cats are dogs.  Here, the conclusion is still independent of the premise. 

Another example of a non sequitur argument would be the opposite, denying the antecedent.  For example, cats are animals.  Dogs are also animals.  Cats are not dogs.  Dogs are not cats.  Therefore, neither are animals.  We could use an example where the conclusion may be true, but the premise would still be false.  For example, I am Singaporean.  I am Eurasian.  If I am not Eurasian, I am not Singaporean.  It could be true, but the two points are unrelated. 

There are half a dozen or so different examples of non sequitur arguments.  In any formal contention, where the premise or the conclusion are unrelated, then the position arrived at, even if it were true, would only be true by coincidence, and not arrived at by logic.

Quora Answer: What is an Ad Hominem Attack?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What is an ad hominem attack?” 

“Ad hominem” is Latin, and literally means “to the person”.  It is a shortened form of “argumentum ad hominem”, “argument to the person”.  In rhetoric, it is an argument, where the speaker attacks the integrity, or a character attribute of the person, instead of the contentions of his argument for or against a position.  There are two kinds of argumentum ad hominem: fallacious and valid. 

A fallacy in rhetoric involving argumentum ad hominem is to directly attack the person to discredit his argument even though his character is not central to the contention he has raised.  This is often employed when there is no strong argument against his contention.  It is emotive, and not based on logic.  For example, someone states that climate change is happening, and cites scientific sources.  Instead of addressing those sources, the opposing speaker questions his ability to tell the truth. 

A valid argumentum ad hominem is to attack the credibility of the person when the credibility of his testimony is predicated on his character.  This is often used in court, to question the character of a witness, to establish or dismiss testimony.

Quora Answer: What do You Call a Person Who Studies & Masters Rhetoric?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What do you call a person who studies and masters rhetoric?” 

Rhetoric is the mastery of the art of putting forth a cogent, coherent argument, for or against a contention, with the intent of convincing or persuading someone or a group of people towards a specific position.  It includes the ability to engage in the ensuing dialogue to achieve that objection.  In English, the person who masters rhetoric is known as a rhetorician.  A rhetorician is known for his ability to speak eloquently.  However, the one who masters, and then teaches this art is actually called a rhetor, a term derived from Ancient Greece.

Quora Answer: What are the Differences & Similarities between Singaporean-Style & Chinese-Style Authoritarianism?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “What is the differences and similarities between Singaporean style of authoritarian governance and Chinese style of authoritarian governance?” 

China is run by a one party system.  The Chinese Communist Party controls everything.  To succeed in such a system, it is necessary to be a member of the party.  The Chinese Communist Party began as a form of totalitarian state, which has evolved into some form of post-totalitarian oligarchy.  There are no elections in China, and political parties other than the Chinese Communist Party, are banned.  There is strict control over the press and forms of expression, including art, film, and social media.  The compact between the state and the people is that as long as the state delivers affluence, security and economic growth, the people leave the running of the state to the Party.  To some extent, that has worked, and China is an economic power. 

Singapore is a socialist democratic state.  There are elections, political parties are not banned, although political expression is heavily regulated to maintain harmony in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society.  Singapore is far from a totalitarian state.  While the press is regulated, it is not censored.  This applies to other forms of free expression such as the arts.  Movies are largely censored for pornography and violence, as opposed to political content.  There is little oversight in social media unless posts and comments fall afoul of existing laws on libel, the maintenance of racial and religious harmony, or threaten the security of the state.  The system advantages the incumbent, but it does not stifle political discussion.