Scholars and historians of rhetoric consider the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, one of the great contributors to our present understanding of this art which, since its early origins and until present, has been a controversial field of study because of its association with persuasion and influence. However, readings of the many ancient and contemporary texts and analyses of the origins and the developments of this ancient art marginalized the role of the Sophists, who were the first to introduce rhetoric to Greece, and usually associated them with the bad reputation rhetoric has acquired over the years. Undoubtedly, Aristotle developed rhetoric in a more comprehensive and systemized explanation than what the Sophists offered, but an examination of how this great philosopher reached his findings, and what elements formed his theory on rhetoric points out that the Sophists, who initiated this art, deserve a re-evaluation of their role and an explanation of their “unethical” perspectives. In this essay, I consider the Aristotelian rhetoric to be a progression of the Sophists’ nascent teachings in rhetoric. Arguably, the “disdained” Sophists introduced a novel field of study that constituted a base for Aristotle’s theory. My argument is based on a chronological reading of the origins and development of rhetoric and recent studies on the Sophists and their discredited achievements almost since the great philosopher, Plato, staged his battle against them. I also regard the platonic versus sophistic approach to the definition of rhetoric, its goals and purposes, and its relation with the public as consequential factors of development of this art. Accordingly, I assume that this rivaling situation could not have existed without the sophisti... ... middle of paper ... ...e’s concern of ethos was closely related with what he considered abuses of previous orators, including the sophists, who exaggerated the use of ethos and gave “rhetoric a bad name” (p. 89). However, Allen (1994) had another interpretation: Aristotle “infuse(d) ethos with a strong recognition of kairos: the speaker…adjusts his/her character to fit the moment, in order to establish a sense identification – of credibility as a member of the community” (p. 7). Aristotle is undoubtedly a great philosopher whose contributions in many fields, including rhetoric, constitute a foundation of our modern education and research. However, many scholars suggested that his theory was an evolution of a preliminary sophistic rhetoric that developed through the years by a group of travelling teachers who formed this art and played a major role in reinforcing democracy in Greece.
Scholars of rhetoric consider the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, one of the great contributors to our present understanding of this art which, since its early origins and until present, has been a controversial field of study because of its association with persuasion and influence. However, an examination of ancient rhetoric and its development by the Sophists and then a study on Aristotle’s theory on rhetoric and how he concluded his findings direct our attention to whether this Greek philosopher only included in his theory what he described as inadequate and non-fundamental Sophistic teachings, or actually built up his theory on their techniques, long bashed and overlooked. In this essay, I consider Aristotle’s rhetoric to be an evolution of the Sophists’ discredited methodology. I assert that the sophistic contribution to Aristotle’s theory is more than a partial inclusion of their teachings disdained by ancient orthodox philosophers and some modern scholars. Examined readings of his theory on the art of rhetoric demonstrate his elaborate use of many sophistic perspectives.
Speech was omnipotent to Gorgias. As a result, he spent all his time instructing exclusively in the art of Rhetoric. He claimed not to teach virtue, arête, because virtue is different for everyone. For example, political, excellence, and moral virtues differ from person to person. The focus of Gorgias is rhetoric. Plato’s views eventually work their way to the surface though his representation of characters in the dialogues. Some of the rhetorical views Plato presents in Gorgias, are the roles flattery plays in persuasion, the relationship between knowledge and truth, and a just use of rhetoric.
The central theme of Act III, Scene ii of “Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare is the power of rhetoric because it shows the effect of two funeral orators’ on the crowd. In this scene, Antony and Brutus have similar purpose in talking to the public, which is to gain the support of the Plebeians according to their conflicting views about Caesar’s assassination. This essay focuses on comparing the orations of the two speakers in this part of the play according to Aristotle’s rhetoric system. According to Aristotle’s writings, Antony’s speech is more persuasive than Brutus’ speech, because he is able to provide logical, emotional and ethical appeals to his audience. Firstly, in comparison to Brutus’ logic, Antony provides more evidence to prove that Caesar was not ambitious. Secondly, Antony’s emotional acts and speech moved his audience more than Brutus. Finally, Antony acts more noble than Brutus does.
The first part of his book is considered as an introduction to the Greco-Roman Rhetoric. Despite of that, Litfin clearly does not make use of any “wearisome minutia” which is common in introductions to rhetoric. In his introduction, Litfin’s view of rhetoric is different from others’ in the sense that he does not consider it as a technic of manipulation and ornament. Despite the negative impact some rhetorician orators have on the church in Corinth and because
Aristotle uses his book Rhetoric, to teach his audience about the means of which we go about persuading others. He expands on this idea by speaking about the three means of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. Each book is focused on the three different modes of persuasion, with this paper mainly focusing on the second one, pathos, and more specifically, the section on friendship. Through Aristotle’s Rhetoric, we can better understand how friendship arises, what the purpose of friends are in rhetoric, and what causes enmity.
In the text Phaedrus, Socrates and Phaedrus consider the nature of the soul in order to assess Lysias' speech, rhetoric in general, and the requirements of good rhetoric for a speaker and an audience. A chariot allegory is given to provide a separation between the rational and impulsive sides of man and suggest the ultimate pursuit of philosophy. Socrates explains the relation of madness to rhetoric by bringing attention to the good gifts that come out of madness, such as the noble lover. There are three lovers discussed throughout Phaedrus that Weaver parallels with the differing ways language can affect us. Through the evaluation of the soul, madness, and lovers, Plato's Phaedrus and Weaver's analysis of Phaedrus, function to provide several
Neo-Aristotelean analysis is one of the earliest forms of rhetorical analysis and focuses on the methodology of using available means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from the audience. Although the style can be quite limiting in modern analysis, it provided the framework on which modern rhetorical criticism was built.
Aristotle was born in 384 BC in Stagira, Chalcidice and his father (Nicomachus) died when he was young. His mother is also thought to have died when Aristotle was young as little is known about her. Proxenus of Atarneus (who was married to Aristotle's sister) became Aristotle's guardian after his father died. At 17, Aristotle joined the academy of Plato in Athens and stayed there as Plato's pupil and colleague for almost 20 years. In 348 BC, Aristotle left Athens and studied the botany and zoology of the island of Lesbos. As well as this, Aristotle married Pythias and they had a child (also named Pythias). After Pythias' mother's death, Aristotle was invited to tutor the son of Phillip II of Macedon, Alexander in 343 BC. The Corpus Aristotelicum is a collection of Aristotle’s works. Not all his works are included in this as many were lost over time. The works are split into three categories; logic, physics, metaphysics, ethics and politics and rhetoric and poetics. Aristotle’s works are sometimes also divided into exoteric and esoteric. Exoteric works refer to those that were intended for the public, while esoteric works were used mostly within his school such as the treatises. It is thought that Aristotle composed around 200 works but roughly 30 have survived to today. Aristotle covered
However, unlike Plato, Aristotle did not believe we were born with this knowledge. In order to acquire knowledge, humans must engage in disciplined academic inquiry (“Classical Rhetoric”, pg. 170). Regarded as the father of science, Aristotle believed that measurement and observation were the foundations of scientific inquiry (Explorable, n.d.). While Plato believed our senses obscured the truth, Aristotle viewed them as being an important part of the discovery process. The first to teach rhetoric at Plato’s Academy, Aristotle saw it as another valuable tool in our quest for truth. He also wrote criticisms of the Sophistic approach believing that their relativistic approach to the truth was wanting. For Aristotle, rhetoric should be employed only when rigorous scientific analysis is not possible. It should be utilized to build upon existing knowledge and further develop ideas and assumptions the audience possesses (“Classical Rhetoric”, pg.
Such binding to the superficial is unimportant and useless in discovering the absolute truth. “Plato faults the Sophists for not using rhetoric to discover absolute truth,” ignoring that they “do not believe absolute truth is accessible to humans (p. 28). For example, take the exchange between Socrates and Gorgias. Gorgias, declaring himself as a rhetor, opens himself to Socrates’ attack. Socrates expresses that rhetoric is “the artificer of a persuasion that attempts to create belief about a topic, “but gives no instructions about” said topic (Gorgias, p. 87-88). Unlike the Sophists, Plato (reflected as well in Socrates) believed that “transcendent truth exists and is accessible to human beings” (Plato, p. 81). Not willing to let “true and false rhetoric” to go undistinguished, Plato began to devote a large part of his career to the study of rhetoric. Even so, this does not reflect the entirety of Plato’s view on rhetoric, as it was not all
Aristotle’s logic is a major achievement of Greek paideia, valued and preserved continuously even in dark ages following its commitment to writing. Here I look at its role in reforming Greek education. The mission of Greek paideia, Aristotle argues in the Politics, is to enable members of a community to discuss with each other serious matters of common interest requiring joint decisionmaking and action. A political organization requires "a method of deciding what is demanded by the public interest and what is just in men’s private dealings" (Politics 1328b2ff).(1) He also stresses the essential function of education to promote the intellectual excellence of the student. A distinctive feature of Greek education in Plato’s Academy and Aristotle’s Lyceum was dialectic – an intellectual exercise in which a student took a position on an issue and defended it against rigorous questioning from an instructor or another student. The origin of dialectic is Socrates elenctic mode of inquiry. Socrates asked a willing or unwilling citizen to put forward a definition of an ethical notion, such as justice, then engaged in a cunning and often baffling conversation with him. By a circuitous route the colloquy ended with the student making an admission inconsistent with his original postulate.
Aristotle’s three types of rhetoric comprise of “the political, forensic, and the ceremonial oratory or display,” (Mueller, 93). Aristotle elaborates on how the three elements of the “speaker, subject and the person being addressed” ultimately “determines the speech’s end and object.” (Mueller, 93). The political form of rhetoric focuses on convincing individuals to act or not to act in a given situation. In this form of rhetoric, the speaker is either convincing the audience on a subject being addressed to do something or not to do something. Aristotle claims that these individuals are designated for “men who address public assemblies” (Mueller, 93). Forensic rhetoric deliberately takes a side on either the defense of the accused or against the accused and disputes that stance in front of a speaker, subject, and a person being addressed.
Greek literature was one of the numerous Greek accomplishments from which Romans drew immense influence. The Romans picked up first on the Greek embrace of rhetoric, which became an educational standard, given that a man’s rhetoric, his ability to “push the buttons” of the subject audience by way of speeches, supplemented the man’s rise to political power. But as rhetoric began to diminish from Roman daily life following Rome’s imperialization, identical persuasive technique began to show itself in Roman literature. But Greek themes were just a backbone in Roman literature, and as time, progressed, Rome established a unique literary style, which, alongside Greek Literature, had a profound influence on the future History of Europe.
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.
The great Aristotle is considered to be the father and founder of many things, one of the major ones being logic. Aristotle has a very narrow view of many things, these views stemming from his extensive research throughout his lifetime, in an apparent attempt to reach the highest level of academia in regards to writing and more specifically, drama. Aristotle has identified a very sound structure for a dramatic presentation, and this structure to this day has been the most effective in bringing about pity and fear in an audience. Aristotle’s influence in the world of poetry and drama is insurmountable, as one author, Barrett, would agree, “From this time on, the influence