Humans’ individuality makes them unique – enabling incredible art, exceptional and distinct inventions, and infinite fascinating perspectives. However, this subjectivity also causes them to have inherent biases, make errors in logic, and have the ability to manipulate their words. Therefore – though it allows an extraordinary diversity of contributions – individualized free will can serve as a dangerous tool as well.
Evidence cannot determine whether this verbal manipulation of audience members has genuinely been increasing in recent years. Nonetheless, the awareness of it has in the Trump era of “alternate facts” and “fake news.” Casey Williams’ article “Has Trump Stolen Philosophy’s Critical Tools?” draws attention to the right wing’s manipulation of philosophical belief in lack of true objectivity. Through his rhetoric, Trump convinces audience members of unsubstantiated claims, negating arguments that are supported by evidence.
To combat the damage of manipulated speech and writing such as this, Williams’ article stresses the importance of critical analysis. This implies that it is the audience’s responsibility to ensure claims are substantiated. While this expresses the need for audience engagement to increase, what should be acknowledged is that this increases as resultant of a possible change in political culture regarding speaker intent. Shouldn’t the reliability and clarity of a speech be the speaker’s responsibility?
The need for heightened critical analysis on behalf of audience members just demonstrates the social detriment that speakers are not held accountable for their claims. Rhetoric may be used as a tool to get points across, but this should not come at the expense of support for substantiated claims or expressing genuine intent. Language is productive, serving purpose: to actively persuade, convey, and more. However, if the speaker’s words do not align with reality, this essentially deems language meaningless, its purpose irrelevant long-term. Therefore, it is not necessarily the responsibility of the audience to critically analyze the speaker’s words, but the speaker to analyze their own.
It is true that one may mistakes, conveying and connecting concepts that aren’t necessarily valid or related. These logical fallacies occur frequently throughout speech and literature alike. Ali Almossawi’s Book of Bad Arguments educates readers on a wide variety of logical fallacies, through the use of definition and example. He expresses that his “hope is that the reader will learn from these pages some of the most common pitfalls in arguments and be able to identify and avoid them in practice” (Almossawi 3).
On the contrary to Williams’s belief the audience must critically analyze claims and vernacular, Almossawi’s book argues that it is the responsibility of both the audience and the speaker to do so. This is true of all encounters, in order to use language most effectively. Nonetheless, wouldn’t it be exhausting to be conscious of the implications of every word all the time?
Thus, this calls for not just a compromise, but a dramatic change in culture. In order to convey productively, the speaker must be liable for their words, and the audience must be liable for adequate interpretation of them. An expectation of genuine expression and genuine interpretation must be cooperatively utilized for the system of communication to work accurately. Everyone must be held accountable, contrary to the current system of no one truly being held as such. Although one person may not make a significant difference, each individual who holds themselves accountable is one step closer to everyone doing so – a productive and communicative culture.
Linus Minus Bias 