Rational-world Paradigm

Griffin explores Fisher's paradigm shift in Ch. 23, from a rational world paradigm to a narrative one. Fisher discusses how the "Greek word logos originally included story, reason, rationale, conception, discourse, and thought--all forms of human communication" and that "imagination and thought were not yet distinct" (p. 301). So writings of Plato and Aristotle supposedly reflected the evolution from a generic to specific use of logos, from story to statement, referring to philosophical discourse. Rhetoric fell somewhere in the middle of logos and mythos, 'practical speech' that included pure logic as well as the ability to stir up passions and emotions. (p. 301) To me, that's a pretty logical way of explaining he difference between the two.

Fisher describes philosphical and technical discussion as the "scholars'" approach to knowledge, also known as the rational-world paradigm. The text defines this as "a scientific or philosophical approach to knowledge that assumes peopler are logical, making decisions on the basis of vidence and lines of argument" (p. 301) There are five assumptions of the prevailing rational-world paradigm:
1. People are essentially rational
(I have to interject my opinion here........ Usually... but not always)

2. We make decisions on the basis of arguments
(I know I make decisions on the outcomes of arguments)

3. The type of speaking situation (legal, scientific, legislative) determines the course of our argument
(How you should speak or present to certain groups)

4. Rationality is determined by how much we know and how well we argue
(how smart you know/sound and how well you do it!)

5. The world is a set of logical puzzles that we can solve through rational analysis

To me, the whole world is a puzzle.... anything can be solved through analysis... it's overanalysis that gets you in trouble! ;)