Socrates and King both use the same tactics to "persuade" people. They use creative tension. They generate a problem and a solution. They say that they want to reach the solution but can't unless the problem is overcome. To overcome said problem, society must understand it and come to grips with it. Basically, the society needs to wake up and smell the coffee. They pretty much point out the "elephants in the room" type thing. They're trying to persuade anyone who will listen. It doesn't really matter who. People will be persuaded no matter what. They both succeed in persuading individuals and the state. It doesn't matter because everyone will hear about what they did/do. If they persuade individuals and not the state, then the people will fight for what they think is right. If the state only listens and not the individuals, it doesn't matter anyways because the state has the authority to change anything. If the individuals don't like it they can protest, or leave.
Yes, I do believe that if someone engages in persuasion that they have access to correct knowledge. They obviously think they know more than others to the extent that they can change their minds. On the other hand, persuasion isn't always knowledge either, it's just someone that's confident enough to make you believe them. Part of establishing a sense of validity in a subject is having the confidence that you know what you are talking about. Socrates knows that he knows nothing, which ironically makes him the wisest man in all of Athens. If you know nothing, you must know something. ha!
King knows that if things keep going the way they are going, people will continue to die and the situation will worsen. They know things and are trying to help, not exactly persuade.
They're not trying to trick anyone or anything. They know what they know, and it's knowledge.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment