"Do not
tire yourself in the explanation; persuasion will not be obtained from the
discourse, even if it is wise."
Normally a reasoned discourse must include a
logic that makes it credible to the listener. This credibility lies in
scientific discourse. But the discourse that deals with the affairs of everyday
life does not include such evidence and persuasion. Unfortunately, it seems
that this persuasion comes to the speech from external factors that make it
worthwhile. These factors, in my opinion, can be limited in two sections:
1) - The content that holds the discourse is interpreted and explained from the
interests of the speaker and the interests of the listener. Each of them
explained, according to his interests, that is why there will be no agreement
between them. Example: A plant owner gives a long speech to his employees about
the value of the discipline and the importance of loyalty and the benefits of
seriousness. And who can deny the validity of what he says? But the workers
have another point of view. They see in his speech a means of distracting them
from the exploitation he exercises over them, and they may be right. The value
given by the orator to his speech is not the same value as the listener accords
to the same discourse.
2) - The second factor that could determine the value of discourse is the value
that the listener accords to the speaker. If the listener considers the speaker
to be a valuable person, then he will judge everything he says credible, even
true and useful even if what he says is truly naive. On the other hand, it is
possible that one refuses an important and useful speech simply because his
speaker is an individual that we do not know his value or that we haven’t
confidence in him or that his dress does not please us. A wise and humble
person who cohabits with an ignorant and stubborn individual finds many
problems.
Does this mean that the discourse in everyday life is not convincing in itself?
In reality, it can be convincing, but its acceptance is conditioned by the moral
of the listener and by the quality of his culture. Example: Does the abolition
of stoning require a detailed explanation and lengthy speeches to show that it
is a terrible, inhuman, brutal and savage crime? Of course not! But
unfortunately some people regard it as the meaning of justice and perhaps
even compassion. ouf!