Comparing Aristotle And Plato's Discussion Of Rhetoric

886 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Aristotle's view of rhetoric with Plato's expressions of rhetoric

The different notions of rhetoric that Aristotle and Plato possess also create slight differences in their views on the connection between rhetoric and justice. Aristotle and Plato are similar in that they both believe the correct use of rhetoric should be in the service of a genuinely just goal. However, in demonstrating that Gorgias’ claims of rhetoric do not have substance, Plato’s Socrates concludes that rhetoric has nothing to do with justice or virtue. He then proceeds to convince Polus to admit that rhetoric is not truly useful, but dangerous. Aristotle agrees that rhetoric, like most good things, can be used to do great harm when he says, “one might confer the greatest of benefits by using these justly, and do the greatest harm by using …show more content…

If untrue and unjust prevail, it is due to the poor use of rhetoric, not the art of rhetoric itself. While Plato’s Socrates claims that all rhetoric is inherently bad and Aristotle claims that rhetoric is unjust if used wrongly, they both suggest that there should be a clear connection between rhetoric and truth and it must do justice to its origin.
In a democratic setting, the most desirable rhetoric comes from Aristotle’s point of view who gives all citizens of a democracy the right to engage in rhetorical deliberation by using the three persuasive appeals, logos, ethos, and pathos. These devices remain powerful tools in a democracy and depending on the purpose, the audience, and the time and place, a successful orator can assess the probability of convincing an audience and can mutually coordinate and interact all three appeals of persuasion. While Aristotle believes that logos should encompass philosophy and can be defined as reason itself, Plato believes that rhetoric is logos of sophistry, which is mere words, and therefore, is useless. This is because Plato does not take into account real life human experience, which suggest that we all perceive things differently. Because everyone has the opportunity to speak, deliberate and judge in a

Show More
Related

  • Free Will and the Rhetorical Situation

    1288 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...o engage in destructive rhetoric are held to task, rhetoric cannot simply be attributed to some state of affairs, while the rhetorician from whose lips the rhetoric emerges is held to no ethical standard. Certainly it is conceivable that rhetoric can have destructive consequences. Rhetoric seems to have played a central role in the deterioration of people’s faith in their systems of government, or the electoral process by which they choose their representatives. A view of rhetoric in which the rhetorician is accountable for the effects of the change they inflict upon the world could lead to less destructive rhetoric and a society which operates on the solid ground of personal responsibility.

    Read More

  • Analyzing Claudette Colvin And Rosa Parks Pathos Rhetoric

    225 Words  | 1 Pages

    Talking about Language and Rhetorics, which in turn means using lanuage to communicate persuasively. Rhetorics date all the way back to the fifth Century in athens, Greece. There is 3 types of Rhetorics that are known. The First being Logos, which is the logic behind an argument. Logos tries to persuade an audience using logical arguments and supportive evidence. The next is Pathos, using Emotional Apeal in terms of persuading someone or an audience. Then there is Ethos, using moral competence to persuade the audience to trust in what they are saying is true.

    Read More

  • The Rhetoric of Injustice

    1394 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout history arguments and debate have been used to decide the fate of kingdoms, challenge a ruler’s authority or even decided where homes would be built. Without arguments our world would be bland and nothing like it is today. Being able to form a well built argument and use it properly is known as rhetoric. Ancient Romans and Greeks considered rhetoric to be one of the most important skills for students. Even today rhetoric is considered a great feat for all scholars. Two great men who were able to use rhetoric and excel at using it were Cicero and Machiavelli. They both argued in some of their most famous works that at times injustice was defendable. Cicero did this in his piece called The Defense of Injustice. Machiavelli did this in his work called The Prince. Each of these men was from completely different times in history, yet both were able to use rhetoric to help make people support their argument. Although rhetoric has many rules and many different formats one of the most well know and organized format is known as the Toulmin method. With the two pieces of work and using Toulmin’s method of rhetoric we can evaluate and discover who makes the best argument and why.

    Read More

  • Art Of Rhetoric Essay

    1114 Words  | 3 Pages

    The art of rhetoric is always used to persuade the audience to the speaker 's point of view. you can find the art of rhetoric in advertisements, documentaries, editorials, speeches from politicians, and teenagers trying to get out of trouble. The art of Rhetoric consists of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.

    Read More

  • Who Is Frances Harper´s Rhetoric?

    618 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, and its uses the figures of speech and other compositional techniques. It’s designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience.

    Read More

  • Rhetoric By Covino And Jolliffe

    339 Words  | 1 Pages

    In the story, What is Rhetoric by William Covino and David Jolliffe, there are a wide variety of topics discussed that are inextricably interwoven with the concept “rhetoric.” Rhetoric, as defined by the authors, is “the study and practice of shaping content.” Consequently, my first thought was: Ok, this is a rather broad and opaque description; my successive thought, however, was one of astonishment, inasmuch as the authors went on to further elucidated this jargon. In doing so, the authors distilled the most crucial elements of what is rhetoric— the prevalence of discourse community, and how appealing language is often a precursor to persuasion.

    Read More

  • Rhetoric vs. Truth

    2248 Words  | 5 Pages

    To begin, Plato’s view of rhetoric stems from his theory of the nature of reality known as Platonic realism. He argues that there are true forms of ideas that exist in a higher realm of being and thought. Essentially, there is a perfect template for every idea in the universe, including such concepts as good, justice and knowledge. These templates are the true abstract qualities of these ideas that individuals of the material realm cannot directly perceive with the senses, and so everything that exists within the worldly realm is actually a flawed copy or reflection of those perfect ideals, or absolutes. Basically, it is the qualities of an idea that make it what it is. For example, suppose one were to take the qualities of being a chair and deconstruct all the ideas there are about what chairs should be, thereby determining what constitutes “chairness”. This would eventually eliminate all the flaws that a chair could have, and then result in a concept of the perfect chair – or a true template. Furthermore, only someone with a highly trained ...

    Read More

  • The Nature of Rhetoric

    1390 Words  | 3 Pages

    Socrates have been using rhetorical devices throughout his discussion with Gorgias, and started out by using ethos appeal to draw Gorgias into his questioning, in which Polus gave an indefinite answers to Chaerephon. Ethos appeal can be described as an appeal by character of authority; it is when we tend to believe those who we respect. After Polus failed to answer the question, Socrates responded, “It certainly looks as though Polus is well qualified to speak, Gorgias, but he’s not doing what he promised Chaerephon he’d do.” (Plato 3). Socrates, who was not satisfied with the answer given by Polus, provoked Gorgias into answering for his disciple as Socrates brought Gorgias’ name into the conversation.

    Read More

  • Plato and Aristotle's Impact on Rhetoric

    1491 Words  | 3 Pages

    Plato and Aristotle are two rhetoricians than had a great impact on the history of rhetoric. Although they were similar in many ways, their use and definition of rhetoric were different. Plato had the more classical approach where he used rhetoric as a means of education to pass down his beliefs and practice of rhetoric to his students. He believed that it should be used to educate the masses, provoking thought, and thereby preserving that knowledge. Plato thought that rhetoric should be used to convey truth, truths already known to the audience, revealed through that dialectic critical thought. Plato also operated on absolute truths, things that are right or wrong, black or white. Aristotle was more modern in that he used rhetoric as a tool of persuasion in the polis. He thought that the main purpose of rhetoric was to persuade, provoking emotions for his audience as a tool of persuasion. Aristotle’s rhetoric was more science based, using enthymemes and syllogism to foster logical thinking. He believed that rhetoric was a means of discovering truth. His rhetoric was highly deliberative since he used it mainly for persuasion. I will discuss their differences in more depth in the following essay.

    Read More

  • Plato vs. Aristotle

    350 Words  | 1 Pages

    Plato vs. Aristotle How do we explain the world around us? How can we get to the truth? Plato and Aristotle began the quest to find the answers thousands of years ago. Amazingly, all of philosophy since that time can be described as only a rehashing of the original argument between Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle's doctrines contrast in the concepts of reality, knowledge at birth, and the mechanism to find the truth.

    Read More

  • Oppositional World Views: Plato & The Sophists

    1786 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Sophist views and beliefs originated in Ancient Greece around 400 B.C.E. The Sophists were known as wandering rhetoricians who gave speeches to those who could afford to listen. The Sophists deeply believed in the power of rhetoric and how it could improve one’s life. Plato on the other hand was opposed to all Sophist beliefs. He viewed the Sophists as rhetorical manipulators who were only interested in how people could be persuaded that they learned the truth, regardless if it was in fact the truth. Plato basically opposed every view the Sophists held true and tried to disprove them throughout his many dialogues. The Sophists and Plato held two very contrasting views and this paper will attempt to sift through them all in hopes of illustrating each one. This paper will first focus on each group. It will begin by identifying both the Sophists and Plato and then citing the significant principles associated with each world view. This paper will then focus on how each component of their world views relate specifically to rhetoric. Finally, this paper will focus on illustrating each world view by way of current newspaper editorial.

    Read More

  • Comparing Aristotle and Plato

    791 Words  | 2 Pages

    We have two great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. These are great men, whose ideas have not been forgotten over years. Although their thoughts of politics were similar, we find some discrepancies in their teachings. The ideas stem from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle. Plato based moral knowledge on abstract reason, while Aristotle grounded it on experience and tried to apply it more to concrete living. Both ways of life are well respected by many people today.

    Read More

  • The Teachings of the Sophists

    1487 Words  | 3 Pages

    Plato defines rhetoric as “the art of ruling the minds of men” (Bloom). The sophists were instructors in the disciplines of rhetoric and overall excellence. Their teachings thrived in the fifth century B.C. Through the work of Protagoras, Gorgias, Antiophon, and other sophists, the people of Athens gained higher education and stopped accepting everything they were taught as absolute fact. This questioning of traditional philosophical schools eventually led to the emergence of other ways of thought such as skepticism.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Aristotle And Plato's Philosophy

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    Another difference between Aristotle and Plato was the disagreement that they had about the world(s). Plato believed that there are two worlds whereas Aristotle believed that there is one and that we are in the middle of it. Plato believed that one world is of things and the other was of forms, Aristotle's argument against Plato’s two worlds philosophy was questioning how can there be a world of things and a separate world of forms if forms are essences of things. Aristotle believed that a distinction must be made between form and matter and that forms are not separate entities, they are embedded in particular things and they are in the world. Another difference between Aristotle and Plato is their philosophy on art. Plato believed that art has the lowest ontological status because artistic images are copies of copies, the artist is ignorant and is a dangerous ignoramus, art reduces beauty to images which is its “lowest common denominator”, and finally art appeals to the passions which makes the artist dangerous. Although Aristotle agrees that the function of art is imitation he disagreed with Plato his objections towards art. He believed that art represented higher truths and that it is a form of philosophy. Aristotle’s philosophy was “the poet’s function is to describe, not the thing that has happened, but a kind of thing that might happen… poetry is something more philosophical and of graver import than history, since its statements are of the nature of universals, whereas those of history are singulars” (Palmer 87). This philosophy would eliminate the first three of Plato’s objections. Aristotle continues to argue against Plato’s fourth objection by stating that “great art can purge from the viewers the passions that have built up in them” (Palmer 87). Plato and Aristotle had very different views about the functions of the human. Plato argued that

    Read More

  • Apology Of Palamedes And The Ethics Of Persuasion

    799 Words  | 2 Pages

    Sophists were itinerate teachers of ancient Greece who taught the art of rhetoric claiming they could teach anyone to persuade. Sophists claimed that once their students had learned the art they could control the state and wealth (Waldman, 2013, para. 1). In Plato’s script, Gorgias, a well-known Sophist, and Socrates engage in a debate regarding the ethics of persuasion, including debating rhetoric dialog as an art (Gorgias).

    Read More

More about Comparing Aristotle And Plato's Discussion Of Rhetoric

Open Document