Settle a debate. What is a rhetorical question?

Excelsior

Myself and The Celtic Tiger are having a debate at the moment.

What is a rhetorical question?

Can a rhetorical statement be right or wrong?

Is the following statement true:
"It is only rhetorical if its right."

So all you clever people out there, (I am looking for Bob, Scutch and Bonkey here) what is the answer.

Gordon

A rhetorical question is a question that does not need an answer or a question that cannot have an answer.

I maybe wrong but for example - "Could I be any more sarcastic" Said in a sarcy Chandler from Friends tone.

rhetoric is the art of speech and language I think. Therefore a rhetorical statement must mean a statement that is worded eloquently, I'm not 100% on this though. A rhetorical statement can be anything in that case.

logic1

IMO Rhetorical questions by definition aren't actually requests for information.

A rhetorical question doesn't need to be right or wrong to be a rhetorical question as they're usually used by one who needs an argument to support a point of view

Even though they use the syntax of a question they're simply supporting the users own point of view and aren't necessarily a matter of correct and incorrect but simply represent an opinion which is implied to be correct according to the users own opinion.

"How can anyone condone the bombing of Afghanistan?"

compared to:

"Do you condone the bombing of Afghanistan?"

In the first case it is clearly apparent in the format of the question that the user does not support the bombing and really does not require an answer, it's used as support of an argument.

In the second case the users own opinion is not apparent and an answer is required.

.logic.

azezil

A rhetorical question implies that the answer is obvious--the kind of question that does not need actually to be answered. It is used for rhetorically persuading someone of a truth without argument, or to give emphasis to a supposed truth by stating its opposite ironically.

bonkey

What is a rhetorical question?

Well, the above is an example of one - because I do not want someone else to answer it!

A rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply.

Normally a question requires a response from the person asked. A rhetorical question does not, and in fact is not expected to be answered. That is all. The purpose or point of the question can be one of many different things, as the following examples attempt show

This can come in several forms :

1) The asker may supply the answer as a follow-up (as I did above),

2) The answer may be self-evident

"So, is the earth flat?"

3) The question may be posed to ridicule or enforce a point of view :

Can anyone in their right mind honestly sanction the killing of millions in the name of relgion?

or

You cant really be suggesting that, can you?

jc

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by Excelsior
So all you clever people out there, (I am looking for Bob, Scutch and Bonkey here)

Ba$tard! You've either insulted 5,436 people or 6 billion - I can't decide

Originally posted by logic1
Rhetorical questions by definition aren't actually requests for information.

There's your defintion

DadaKopf

Yeah, it's a question that implicitly qualifies its own answer.

Here's an even more fun thing to discuss:

"This sentence is false" or "A Cretan said that all Cretans are liars".

Are these sentences true or false?

Gordon

Originally posted by DadaKopf
"A Cretan said that all Cretans are liars"

Actually I went to Crete and met that guy... he's wrong!

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Yeah, it's a question that implicitly qualifies its own answer.

Here's an even more fun thing to discuss:

"This sentence is false" or "A Cretan said that all Cretans are liars".

Are these sentences true or false?

These sentences are self-contradictory, which means that they are outside the classical definitions of truth or falsehood, and attempting to classify them as such is nonsensical.

Its like the "what happens when an irrestible force meets an immovable object" qestion. Its a non-question, as by definition, you cannot have both an irrestible force and an immovable object.

Put another way, they are illogical constructs which while gramattically valid are nonsensical from a logical standpoint.

therefore, my answer is that they are neither true or false.

jc

the celtic tiger

a rhetoric question doesn't require an answer, the answer is already assumed from the question and therefore a rhetoric question is true by default.

DadaKopf

Ah Bonkey, it's an interesting point to argue - call it, fun!

I mean, what is meaning? And what's language? Ok, so we have language as a means to convey inner thoughts, which we assume has meaning, but is there such a thing as truth and falsehood? You could say 'yes' because if there wasn't, things would be meaningless, we'd have no way of making sense of things in the world. On the other hand, you could say 'no', it's just the syntax that counts, and merely a highly complex inter-subjectivity; truth or falsehood is unimportant, the syntax is. The referents referred to within a system is enough. I mean, does the human brain even cognise things in terms of truth or falsehood or is it some kind of fiction?

I just threw those quotes in because some people might like to talk about the problems it illustrated

Wotchyiz think?

PHB

A rhetorical question is a question which
States an obvious point in the form of a question
Mostly its sarcastic, but thats not required
It doesnt have to be right or wrong

Excelsior

I think we can all agree that by and large, The Celtic Tiger's point is balls?

Thanks for settling the argument.

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
[Bis there such a thing as truth and falsehood? [/B]

Now this is the much more interesting question which follows on from your initial one.

What do we mean by something being true, or false. Is there only these two states, or are there a number of "grey" states between?

jc

Hobbes

I can tell you what a rhetorical question is but I suspect you already know the answer.

Loomer

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Yeah, it's a question that implicitly qualifies its own answer.

Here's an even more fun thing to discuss:

"This sentence is false" or "A Cretan said that all Cretans are liars".

Are these sentences true or false?

These are examples of non sequiturs. A statement that does not follow logically from what proceeded it, I would think.
Someone might venture an oxymoron but this implies conjoining contradictory statements like... a deafening silence; cruel kindess et al

JustHalf

Originally posted by Loomer
Someone might venture an oxymoron but this implies conjoining contradictory statements like... a deafening silence; cruel kindess et al

DadaKopf

As far as I know, a non sequitir is an inference that doesn't follow from its premises. These sentences aren't non sequitirs.

Notice the difference: "If I go to the shop, I will buy a newspaper" - if I don't go to the shop, it would be false to infer that I will buy a newspaper. That's an example of a non sequitir.

"This sentence is false" is merely a statement which neither proves nor disproves itself in light of its syntactic and semantic content. Syntactically, the sentence is correct, semantically, it defies a true or false value. Since a non sequitir must be false, this is not a non sequitir.

So it raises the question: is there such a thing as truth or falsehood? Or, are the statements themselves sufficient to convey meaning and that a true or false value is just an extra 'thing' to bolster your statement? If, in the case of the above sentence, the structure of language can't reconcile structure with meaning, then is it up to the task of sufficiently expressing accurate meaning at all?

Noam Chomsky coined the phrase "green monsters pedal furiously" (I think) which shows how correct linguistic structure does not entail meaning. "This sentence is false" shows the same thing - how common language isn't 100% reliable in the conveyance of meaning, which is its only function.

But maybe it's not so bad; maybe we just need to abandon our reliance truth and falsehood.

the celtic tiger

it's settled then, i win.

][cEMAN**

What do I care?

JustHalf

You cared enough to post a response.

bonkey

Originally posted by the celtic tiger
a rhetoric question doesn't require an answer, the answer is already assumed from the question and therefore a rhetoric question is true by default.

A rhetorical question doesnt require an answer

Correct. More correctly, a rhetorical question is one which does not require a *response* from the person being asked the quertion.

[/i]The answer is already assumed from the question[/i]

Incorrect. The answer may or may not be assumed. The question may have a non-apparent answer, but which is then supplied by the person asking the question.

In both cases, the person being asked the question is not expected to respond to the question. You only cover some rhetorical questions by requiring that the answer be inherent in the question.

(Note the distinction between a response and an answer).

a rhetoric [sic] question is true by default
Incorrect. Questions are neither true nor false as they are not statements of fact. Also, there is no requirement for the answer to be either true or false.

The only requirement is that the question is posed with the intention that the person being asked is not expected nor required to provide a response.

it's settled then, i win.

You are partially correct in your explanation, but not fully.

If the core of your argument was that "its only rhetorical if its right" then you are definitely incorrect, as questions in and of themselves do not have a truth or falsehood.

On the other hand, Exelsior never told us his interpretation. So unless he was simply saying that you were incorrect, I cant say whether or not his interpretation was correct either.

jc

Loomer

Damn you smartey-man Dadakopf

and ROFL Justhalf, who will clean up the wetness