More handpicked essays just for you.
Plato's view of rhetoric
Nietzsche concept of truth
Nietzsche arugment in on truth and lies of a nonmoral sense
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The relationship between rhetoric and truth is a highly conflicted topic. Two philosophers that discuss this topic are Plato and Nietzsche. Plato argues that rhetoric is merely a useful craft that deals only in the subjective and material world rather than in the pursuit of true knowledge. Nietzsche, on the other hand, argues that absolute truths are unobtainable since individuals are incapable of being completely objective, thereby rendering the debate between rhetoric and truth meaningless. Although both are valid points of view, Nietzsche’s argument appears to hold more weight insofar as it seems to solve the debate between rhetoric and truth by eliminating absolute truth altogether.
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 ...
... middle of paper ...
...d as well? Even if everything is an illusion, it still achieves the same ultimate goal. After all, if people did happen to come to know absolutes truths, they would likely be unable to understand it or even realize what it is. Perhaps then, it is possible that the search for truth is the wrong way to go about achieving happiness and goodness – if those terms have absolute qualities at all. The case may simply be that acting in accordance with the nature of humanity is the way to true contentment, and that the only truth is that humanity lives in a world build solely on a subjective reality, and rhetoric and language are just part of that nature.
Works Cited
On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, Nietzsche. United States of America: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2001. 1171-1179. Print
Gorgias, Plato. United States of America: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. 87-138. Print
A Rhetorical Analysis of Lockdown by Evans D. Hopkins. According to the Webster Dictionary, rhetoric is defined as the art of speaking or writing effectively. Rhetoric is made up of three separate appeals that can be used individually or collectively in an attempt to persuade a reader. Ethos is the credibility and qualifications of the speaker or author.
“On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” is an unfinished work written by Friedrich Nietzsche in 1873. In this work, Nietzsche takes an approach to explaining the truth in a way that we would all find very unusual, but that is merely the Nietzsche way. In this essay I will analyze how Nietzsche views the truth, as explained in “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense”
In the time of ancient Greece, there were a category of teachers called the sophists who believed that wisdom and Rhetoric could and should be used for profit and personal gain. Aristotle, a well-known teacher, disagreed with this completely and believed that while Rhetoric is persuasive, it should be used morally and with good intentions. He stressed the idea of using moral standards along with emotion, logic and truth to persuade any audience. Almost 1000 years later, Augustine took this step even further with the use of rhetoric within religion practice. He emphasized the idea that rhetoric is a means by which to promote good will and spread truth. Today, modern rhetorician Dubinsky would take this step even further, by stating that Rhetoric isn’t just a means to an end. Rhetoric improves our very lives and unites people under a common good with the proper ethics. While it is unfortunate that they are from different time periods, Aristotle, St Augustine, and Dubinsky would surely all agree that Rhetoric is a means by which regular people can be persuasive with their ideals. All while using the right morals, good intentions, and correct ethics to do so, so that any regular person can influence and change their world, from the simplest of arguments to the greatest of debates. That is why I believe we should study these famous rhetoricians, because their teachings teach us how to become better people and better writers. Aristotle, St. Augustine, and Dubinsky believed in Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, which means studying and working with your audience to persuade them in such way that you’re collaborating for the benefit of both the writer and the reader.
The first thing one must consider is whether there is any merit in writing or rhetoric. According to Socrates, speech writing is not bad. The only way it can ever be bad is if it is not done well. Therefore, one must consider what is necessary for writing well. Socrates proposes that in order to write well, one must know what is true about his subject. However, Phaedrus points out that perhaps all that is necessary to be seen as a good writer is to know what the people believe to be right about that subject and then write about it as they view it. However, Socrates shows that this is erroneous because then one can persuade others that wrong is right, and as a result rhetoric would have poor results. Instead, Socrates proposes that correct rhetoric is a tool through which knowledge is used to expertly persuade others. However, rhetoric can also be seen as, not a form of art, rather a talent. If it is thus seen, then in order to become an expert in it one must be born with the talent. Even if rhetoric were only a talent, there are steps to improve and build on it. For example, one may have talent, but without an acquaintance with the truth of the subject, one cannot give a professional speech. Once one is acquainted with his subject, th...
The question of what is rhetoric and what does it do has been a question since stories were even being recorded. However, now there are multiply different scholars who believe that they understand what rhetoric is and how to use it. For someone to use rhetoric correctly they must first have a definition of rhetoric that either they have made to fit themselves or they find a previous definition that suits them. In order for me to become an improved rhetor and be able to rhetorical discuss and evaluate pieces of literature or speeches like General Douglas MacArthur’s Farewell address, I must first define rhetoric in how I understand it. Rhetoric is the art of persuasive speaking aimed to sway your audience in a direction that has been chosen by the rhetor. The way in which a citizen uses rhetoric can change over time. The need to argue the same problem is invalid so the need to use the same rhetorical situations is invalid. You can use rhetoric in a multitude of different areas within our life however; we must choose to use it for good or for evil. In order for rhetoric to still be used in speech today one of two things must be true. There must either be a Truth in life and rhetoric or the more likely choice, that rhetoric changes throughout time and situations. You are not trying to change someone’s mind about something however; you are trying to convince them that you are also correct. I will be using multiple pieces of works that are defining rhetoric to support my definition and finish by evaluating General Douglas MacArthur’s Farewell Address using my definition of rhetoric.
Nietzche, Friedrich. "On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense." The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings. Ed. Raymond Geuss & Ronald Speirs. Cambridge UP, 1999.
September 10, 2009. Cambridge Critical Guide to Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morality, Simon May, ed., 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1473095>. Nietzsche, Friedrich.
Many people do not understand how rhetorical techniques work. All they know is that if you are able to force your ideas into someone else’s mind then you have successfully accomplished your goal. But there is more to it than just forcing your idea into someone's mind, for example there is many rhetorical techniques that can be use to be more efficient at persuading people to share the same beliefs you believe on. One example would be in “The Allegory of the Cave” by Plato, Plato uses two successful rhetorical techniques one of them being the allegory and the second technique plato uses is the dialogue, both of them being successful techniques in this allegory to persuade the readers about his points of view.
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.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense represents a deconstruction of the modern epistemological project. Instead of seeking for truth, he suggests that the ultimate truth is that we have to live without such truth, and without a sense of longing for that truth. This revolutionary work of his is divided into two main sections. The first part deals with the question on what is truth? Here he discusses the implication of language to our acquisition of knowledge. The second part deals with the dual nature of man, i.e. the rational and the intuitive. He establishes that neither rational nor intuitive man is ever successful in their pursuit of knowledge due to our illusion of truth. Therefore, Nietzsche concludes that all we can claim to know are interpretations of truth and not truth itself.
In his essay entitled “The Rhetorical Stance,” Wayne Booth describes how rhetorical stance is imperative for good writing. I agree with Booth that by using rhetoric stance in our writing we can produce and powerful and well-written argument. How then do we know if we are using the art of rhetoric in our writing? According to Booth, “Rhetoric is the art of finding and employing the most effective means of persuasion on any subject, considered independently of intellectual mastery of that subject" (199). In making this comment Booth urges us to be knowledgeable on the subject we are writing about and use passion and emotional appeals to strengthen our argument. Booth gives his readers a good explanation of what the word means and how it is portrayed in essays.
The term politics is generally being understood as state politics such as legislators, bureaucrat and government departments. ‘Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them’ (Paul Valery, Fr. Poet). Paul Hirst suggests that politics exists where there’s a plurality of actors, with different ways of calculating their interests, and the possibility of conflict. This essay will explain how is the study of rhetoric helpful in making sense of politics by defining at the terms politics, power relations, rhetoric and I will use Kevin Rudd’s apology speech to illustrate it.
In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates discusses the nature and uses of rhetoric with Gorgias, while raising moral and philosophical perspective of rhetoric. Socrates believes that rhetoric is a kind of false knowledge whose purpose is to produce conviction, and not to educate people about the true extent of knowledge (Plato 15). On the other hand, Gorgias argues that the study of rhetoric is essential in any other professional fields, in order to provide an effective communication (Plato 19). After their discussion of rhetoric, Socrates seems to understand the true extent of rhetoric better as compared to Gorgias, as he is able to use rhetoric appeals as a device to dominate the conversation. During their discussion, Socrates seems to have use rhetorical appeals, such as ethos appeal and pathos appeal to connect and convince the crowd of audiences, and logos appeal to support his claims. His speeches seems to have shown sarcastic aspects and constantly asking questions in order to keep Gorgias busy, at the same time preparing an ambush. Since rhetoric is the art of effective communication through the form of speaking and writing, with the appropriate knowledge and virtue, it can be used for good purposes. On the other hand, rhetoric also can be used as an act of conviction because rhetorical appeals can be defined as an act of persuasion as well. Learning the true extent of rhetoric can help an individual strengthen their verbal communication skills. Socrates uses rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos appeal to win his argument against Gorgias, as he is able to get the audiences’ attention through rhetoric and cornered Gorgias into revealing the true extent of rhetoric.
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...
The teachings of sophism stressed highly on the importance of rhetoric and overall excellence. Even though sophists are often looked on in a negative light, lessons can be learned from the fifth century scholars. The art of rhetoric can get one far in life. When man can defend both sides of an argument or persuade his objective, there is no limit to what man can achieve.