Throughout the
semester, we have read different works that suggest either rhetoric is an art
or it is not. Aristotle supports the idea that rhetoric is an art. He believes
in a method that is teachable and effectively creates a “science of rhetoric”
that Plato mentioned in Phaedrus.
Aristotle makes rhetoric a science by providing classifications and divisions
within the subject, effective means of persuasion, and what seem to be
step-by-step instructions to persuade an audience. The style of this text is much
different than Plato’s Gorgias and Phaedrus because it is written like a
lesson book. As a reader, I felt as though Aristotle distanced himself from his
work more than Plato did because the tone was more educational than
opinionated.
A quote in the
introduction says, “It is not too much to claim that rhetoric is the art that
governs those human relationships that are conducted in the medium of spoken
and written words” (pg. vii). This idea reminds me of Kenneth Burke’s statement
that all communication is rhetorical and we cannot escape it. If anything,
these ideas have convinced me that studying rhetoric is worthwhile because it
is an everyday skill that is useful in a variety of aspects. As a pre-law
major, I also considered if the way laws are written is a rhetorical process,
or if the laws are simply laws and the way they are defended is rhetorical.
Aristotle’s
definition of rhetoric is “the faculty of observing in any given case the
available means of persuasion” (pg. 3). This definition says a lot about
Aristotle’s view of rhetoric because of the phrase “available means.” I think
this is most significant because it demonstrates his belief in the ability to
find and use a variety of rhetorical tools. In this light, finding the means of
persuasion available is a method and a strategy and that can be taught. Often
times, I think people today find too many different ways to persuade an audience
and end up with an argument that is completely off topic, yet still convincing.
For example, politicians are known to talk circles around a question they don’t
want to answer and celebrities have learned how to avoid responding directly to
personal or uncomfortable questions. Regardless of them beating around the
bush, both politicians and celebrities maintain large fan followings.
Aristotle divides
rhetoric into three kinds: forensic, deliberative, and epideictic. In the first
half of the book, I found the discussion of forensic rhetoric appealing because
I am currently working on a thesis project that is based on understanding
forensic rhetoric. I am conducting a rhetorical analysis of a controversial
Supreme Court case for the project. I will be using both non-artistic and
artistic proofs in my thesis. Because it is based on a Supreme Court case the
non-artistic proofs that Aristotle lists such as laws, witnesses, and oaths are
particularly important.
Another idea we
have discussed in class throughout the semester is the idea of virtue vs.
pleasure and how it affects the rhetorician. Aristotle claims, “The honest
rhetorician has no separate name to distinguish him from the dishonest” (pg.
3). This statement makes me believe that he thinks good rhetoricians can be
dishonest as well as honest, while Plato believed honesty and truth were
requirements for a good rhetorician. This idea was presented a lot in the
discussion of forensic rhetoric as Aristotle explains different human motives,
the differences between rational choices and irrational choices, the states of
mind people have when they commit crimes, and the different kinds of
wrongs.
The use of
enthymemes is a major aspect of Aristotle’s teachings. While I find enthymemes
to be useful, I also think they present a lot of opportunities for dishonesty.
If one of the premises is false, it is easy for an audience to ignorantly
accept the conclusion. For example, an audience may believe the conclusion that
the radio is a bad source of new music if the premises are one particular
station plays only old music and that particular station is a radio station.
Because that station may not be representative of the radio as a whole, the
audience would have accepted a false premise and in turn, a untrue conclusion.
Questions for discussion:
1. Do you think
enthymemes are good rhetorical device? Or are they too dangerous to use because
of the possibility for false premises to be accepted?
2. Did you enjoy
having fewer opinions from Aristotle and more education in his writing, or do
you prefer Plato’s writing style that infuses his own opinions with the text?
First off I really enjoyed your blog post and I think you raise a lot of great questions. I agree with you when you state, that enthymemes present a lot of opportunity for dishonesty. I think beyond that enthymemes leave a lot of room for misunderstanding. In the second half of reading Aristotle goes into great depth regarding enthymemes such as; anger, friendship, enmity, and kindness. While I do feel these enthymemes are good rhetorical devices. I think Aristotle makes a good point in the second half when he states "Clearly the orator will have to speak so as to bring his hearers into a frame of mind." Aristotle teaches us about all these enthymemes and then puts all the responsibility in the hands of the orators. However, as you mentioned above the majority of people do not use these enthymemes honestly. Or even if they do think they understand enthymemes they can be easily misinterpreted as they are passed along. You state that you believe Plato incorporated more opinions in his text than Aristotle. I agree with that but I think we start to get a little more of Aristotle's opinion in the second half than in the first. While he formats his writing as a guide and I do believe that it is a guide but I think it is a guide of his opinion. For example, when he talks about emulation he throws in his own opinions such as " it is therefore a good feeling felt by good persons." That is Aristotle's opinion that good people express emulation. So I think in the second half we can see more of Aristotle’s opinion than in the first half.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post! In answer to your questions:
ReplyDelete1. I do think that they're good rhetorical devices in that they're persuasive, in that they're short, sweet, and very sure kinds of arguments. However, they are also dangerous since to make an enthymeme (No, Chrome Spellcheck, I do not mean hymen) you have to make large unexplained assumptions. Overall, I think they can be used, but it should depend on audience. I agree with what Aristotle in regard to Maxims, in that neither should be used before an inexperienced audience, or as Aristotle puts it, "to use them in handling things in which one has no experience is sill and ill-bred" (137). The "one" in that quote can be used to refer to both the speaker and audience in my opinion. So basically, I feel enthymemes should only be used when the speaker/s and audience have enough knowledge of the subject where a detailed explanation the premises that are being presented as a given are not necessary.
2. I almost lean a bit towards Plato, because the style of writing presents it as his opinions, and not necessarily as fact? (Even if he frames it as Socrates being right in all things.) I feel a bit wary of Aristotle in a way, because while his thorough study of rhetoric and psychology was probably quite thorough for its time, I guess I do worry about the fact that Aristotle's work so far is giving us all of this stuff about rhetoric, pshychology, and how to get your audience to listen, without going too far into the morality of all of this? Especially the section on fear, I was starting to get kind of creeped out by the lack of "but don't use this for...". I mean, he made a billion other lists, he could stand to make a few lists regarding the specific morality of some of his suggested techniques. xD And Plato, while his writings are not as science-y as Aristotle, definitely went deep into morality.