More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato and Aristotle compare contrast
Plato and Aristotle compare contrast
Plato and Aristotle compare contrast
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
Plato's rhetoric uses dialogue and dialectic as a means of making meaning known. Anthony Petruzzi says that Plato’s “Truth is neither a correspondence with an "objective" reality, nor does it exist solely as a coherent relation to a set of social beliefs; rather, truth is concomitantly a revealing and a concealing, or a withdrawing arrival” (Petruzzi 6). However, for Plato truth becomes a matter of correspondence or correctness in “the agreement of the mental concept (or representation) with the thing” (Petruzzi 7). In other words, the tr...
... middle of paper ...
... thus aiding in the process of decision making and acceptance of knowledge” (199).
For both Plato and Aristotle, the end goal was truth and justice. For Plato, rhetoric must be used for good purposes in order to persuade the one through discourse. Rhetoric for Aristotle, on the other hand, was that truth could be attained by arguing and understanding both sides with the use of knowledge and enthymemes, thus deciding in the end what is best. For Plato, the main use of rhetoric should have been to instruct as opposed to being used just to persuade. Persuasion without the intentions of discerning the difference between good and bad was unsettling for Plato. In contrast, Aristotle believed that not all spectators could be informed effectively and that some needed aid to be persuaded. In lieu of all of their differences, both had major effects on rhetoric in history.
Effectively communicating an idea or opinion requires several language techniques. In his study of rhetoric, Aristotle found that persuasion was established through three fundamental tools. One is logos, which is used to support an argument through hard data and statistics. Another is ethos, which is the credibility of an author or speaker that allows an audience to conclude from background information and language selection a sense of knowledge and expertise of the person presenting the argument. The impact of pathos, however, is the most effective tool in persuasion due to the link between emotions and decisions. Although each of these tools can be effective individually, a combination of rhetorical devices when used appropriately has the ability to sway an audience toward the writer’s point of view.
Aristotle is known for a lot of his concepts but the one I'm going to use today is his Rhetorical Concept. This concept is made up of five parts: Logos, Ethos, Pathos, Telos, and Kairos. Each one of these concepts plays a part in telling a story. I recently watched the movie “Charlotte’s Web” again and was able to see all the different concepts that Aristotle came up with in the movie.
Rhetorical appeals apply to everyday life and the three sections of the rhetoric’s cover all elements of persuasion. Moore and Machiavelli do an outstanding job of explaining their points and why you should believe what they are saying. Both author’s did a great job of educating and informing their viewers although they were two significantly different pieces. Moore and Machiavelli’s work are each their own with respect to purpose and lessons but they also both come together in regards to using Aristotle’s three rhetorical appeals.
Socrates’ rhetoric was used much to his advantage throughout The Last Days of Socrates and it ultimately had a tremendous impact in the realm of philosophical truth, as well as the outside world, including Athens.
Plato’s thought has two axes: thematical and formal. Thematically it moves around the Good, and formally, around the dialectic. Both themes are the ground of his whole work and the ideas are not more than the attempt of joining them. The dialectical access to ideas is fully congruous with the question of the Good, at all levels. This is clearly exposed in the beginning of Philebus, (4) where it is necessary to reach the truth about the good through dialogue, with all required efforts. But dialogue is not a combat between enemies to win one position, but the battle between allies supporting the truth.
Rhetoric is the use of words, through speech or writings, for the sake of persuasion and argument. The name Aristotle is known around the world. He is one of the most famous philosophers throughout history. Aristotle introduced to us the concept of the Rhetorical Triangle and three Rhetorical Appeals in order to apply structure to persuasion and argument. The Rhetorical Triangle, consists of the audience, the author, and the text, or message. Each Rhetorical Appeal corresponds to a point of the triangle. Logos, which is Greek for words, follows logic and applies to the text. The Greek word for character is ethos, it refers to credibility applies to the authority of the author to speak on the given subject.
Rhetoric is the art of using language to persuade an audience. Writers and speakers often use rhetoric appeals. Aristotelian Rhetoric appeals are used in arguments to support claims and counter opposing arguments. Rhetoric used four different approaches to capture its audience’s attention: pathos, logos, and ethos. Pathos bases its appeal on provoking strong emotion from an audience. Ethos builds its appeal based on good moral character of the writer or speaker and relies on good sense and good will to influence its audience. Logos persuades its audience through the use of deductive and inductive reasoning. The kiaros approach requires a combination of creating and recognizing the right time and right place for making the argument in the first place. All of these appeals are important tools, and can be used together or apart to persuade an audience.
Persuasion was at the centre of definitions of rhetoric in the manuals that taught Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Rhetoric, according to Aristotle in his The Rhetoric, was the faculty of observing on any given case the available means of persuasion. Phaedrus who was highly influenced by Socrates, says in his dialogue that “the intending orator is under no necessity of understanding what is likely to be thought just by the body of men who are to give judgment; nor need he know what is truly good or noble, but what will be thought so, since it is on the latter, not the former, that persuasion depends.” Plato sets up in his dialogues what would become the key views of the anti-rhetorical prejudice: the philosopher is concerned with the true and the just, while the rhetorician struggles only to appear just. Persuasion is portrayed as duplicitous and separated from
... his lecture genre his not appealing, it is very convincing. He states the facts in a concise and in an organization unparalleled by Plato. Aristotle does not drift far from his objective, and if he does, he reminds us to "return to where we left the argument" (Aristotle, 403b). To sum up, there are advantages and shortcomings of Plato's dialect and Aristotle's lecture genres.
For hundreds of years, Plato has been admired as a writer, a master rhetorician, an artist, and above all, a philosopher; however, Plato's backlashes against sophistry and art have led to much confusion concerning his ideas and beliefs. John Poulakos says of Plato, "[F]or most rhetoricians Plato has always played the same role he assigned to the sophists--the enemy" (Nienkamp 1). Plato will always appear to be the skilled rhetorician or artist who speaks out against rhetoric and art. In Apology and Phaedrus we see the character of Socrates rail against writing because it can quickly get out of control of the author and just as easily be misinterpreted, yet Plato is known for his skillful dialogical writing. In reference to the Divided Line, Plato informs us that art is one of the lowest forms because it is no more than an illusion, yet Plato uses his artistic ability in "Simile of a Cave" to help us understand the journey to knowledge. This ambiguity within the texts leads to, what appears to be, Plato contradicting himself; however, to fully understand these contradictions we must ask ourselves, "Who is the real Plato?" Plato's contradictory nature and overall ambiguity make the lines of distinction between the writer, the rhetorician, the artist, and the philosopher become blurred, so it is difficult for anyone to understand or explain the real Plato.
What is the Art of Rhetoric? 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.
In that light, it is interesting to analyse what it is that made these artistic words such a difference. A difference that persuaded people to change their behavior. Thankfully, human history has created a term to define these great speeches. It is called rhetoric. In this essay we will try to determine whether rhetoric is an art, or merely a
Rhetoric in the article by William Covino and David Jolliffe is explained as an art of persuasion that uses communication with a purpose or goal. To add, it is an ongoing conversation between the rhetor and the auditors. In addition to using persuasion, the observance of the audience is used as well. In the article by William Covino and David Jolliffe they talk about the four major elements of rhetoric: the rhetorical situation, the audience, the methods of persuasion, and the 5 canons. As explained in the reading the purpose of rhetorical communication is to teach, to please, and to move.
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 ...
Thirdly, Plato and Aristotle hold contrasting views on the mechanism of finding the truth. Plato relied on the ability to reason in his attempt to explain the world. He produced his ideal world based on reason since such a world lies beyond the realm of the five senses. Plato ignored his senses because he believed his senses only revealed the imperfect forms of the ordinary world.