[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 334 KB, 720x888, took.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12334020 No.12334020 [Reply] [Original]

Any literature that explores how people argue in pursuit of an agenda? Like 'conversation as chess' or something? I don't mean a formal debate, or a clear case of someone making an argument to you, what I have in mind is along the lines of poisoning the well in day-to-day conversation. Privileging certain interpretations, discriminating against others, trying to get you to agree to their axiomatic claims, etc, in order to guide the discussion in a direction that's agreeable to them. I haven't read Foucault but I'm guessing he might touch on this in his works?

>> No.12334035
File: 127 KB, 768x768, 1546423661641.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12334035

>> No.12334038
File: 39 KB, 354x500, 857588.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12334038

>>12334020

I'm not kidding, op. Check it out.

>> No.12334039

>>12334020
I know exactly what you're talking about but not only do I not know of any works discussing it I can't even properly express what the process is. It's just an instinctual thing

>> No.12334045

The Distributist tells me to do this but I'm too autistic.

>> No.12334132

>>12334039
Any exchange of ideas seems vaguely fraudulent and animal because of this phenomenon, whatever it is. It's like a will to power thing, I think—except it's more like a will to extend your perspective beyond yourself.

>> No.12334391

>>12334020
my diary desu