Aristotle’s Teachings on Rhetoric

The ability to persuade is a powerful skill that can help influence the developments of our lives, the conditions of the community, and the actions of society. However, people must possess advanced knowledge and superior skills to exercise rhetoric effectively and to successfully persuade people to agree with their opinions, take specific actions, and accept their notions of truth. Because rhetoric is a complicated concept that has such a strong influence on our species, many thinkers have attempted to describe rhetoric and identify the characteristics of using language for persuasive purposes. Aristotle provided an important explanation of rhetoric that elaborates on the features of rhetoric, the connection between rhetoric and writing, and the different essential purposes of rhetoric.

Aristotle was one of the most important Greek philosophers of Ancient Greece. Born in Stagira, Aristotle studied medicine and then traveled to Athens to study under the revered philosopher, Plato, at Plato’s Academy. Although Aristotle acquired superior thinking skills while training under Plato as a mentor, after Plato died, Aristotle emerged as a brilliant thinker and developed many innovative philosophical concepts that helped Greece flourish intellectually and that have had a significant influence on Western society. Additionally, Aristotle also perpetuated his profound ideas by tutoring Alexander the Great, for Alexander would inevitably help spread many of Aristotle’s teachings and many concepts of Greek Hellenistic thought while conquering various portions of the world (Aristotle). Although Aristotle wrote and taught ideas that addressed a diverse range of philosophical concepts, Aristotle’s teachings on rhetoric provide important guidelines that can help improve our ability to understand and utilize the device of rhetoric.

Aristotle defines and describes rhetoric as the means by which someone can use language and other communication techniques to successfully persuade people as to the legitimacy and correctness of an argument or position. However, different rhetorical techniques of persuasion are appropriate and effective for different conflicts and circumstances. As a result, Aristotle defines a rhetorician as a person who is consistently capable of identifying which possible means of persuasion would be most efficacious for each given situation. To do so, the rhetorician must possess extensive knowledge regarding all available methods of persuasion, must perceptively analyze the respective situation, and must then select the particular method that has the best chance of successfully convincing the audience regarding the validity of the argument. Different factors that should be considered when selecting the rhetorical method include the argument being proposed, the purpose of the argument, the audience that the orator is attempting to persuade, and the type of environment in which the oratory is occurring.

Aristotle emphasizes that a great rhetorician is not required to always successfully persuade people and utilizes the apt analogy of a doctor to express this point (Rapp, 2002). Although a great doctor might be incapable of healing certain injuries or ailments, the doctor still establishes his greatness by being able to know and apply every possible method that has the potential to cure the problem. Just so, although a great rhetorician might sometimes fail to persuade, a great rhetorician still understands which methods of persuasion would be most effective for the given situation and then exercises those methods with superior skill (Rapp, 2002). Thus, rhetoric refers to means of persuasion, while a rhetorician is a person who possesses the advanced knowledge and exceptional skills required to completely understand the different methods of rhetoric, can utilize a diverse range of persuasive techniques and can select and use the particular rhetorical methods that would be most appropriate for the situation and most effective for the argument.

Aristotle also elaborates on the close connection between rhetoric and dialect. Dialect refers to the construction of language for the purposes of forming comprehensible sentences and expressing an argument, and Aristotle refers to rhetoric as the counterpart of dialect. The dialect or language of every argument must form logical sentences, express an official claim, and then explain premises and evidential reasons to support the given claim. As a result, the evidence expressed by the speaker to demonstrate the legitimacy of the claim is intended to persuade the audience that the speaker’s claim is correct. However, many factors can prevent sufficient evidence and compelling proofs from successfully persuading audiences, for human audiences are inevitably vulnerable to be influenced by many other rhetorical factors besides evidence (Kennedy, 2007). Rhetoric is the counterpart of dialect because the persuasive methods of rhetoric help adorn the sentence constructions of dialect with a convincing force that increases the persuasive powers of the argument. While dialect determines which words and sentences best express an argument, rhetoric determines which language or communication techniques would be most persuasive. The appropriate description of Aristotle is that dialect explains the argument while rhetoric encourages others to agree. Thus, rhetoric corresponds to and complements dialect by decorating the language with persuasive devices that can maximize the ability of the speaker to convince people to agree with the argument.

Both dialect and rhetoric are equally important to establishing the efficaciousness of an argument. Because both dialect and rhetoric are so closely connected, a great rhetorician must possess a superior command of both techniques. The speaker must exercise dialect by constructing high-quality sentences that are appropriate for the language style of the culture or audience, clearly articulate the specific argument claim being proposed, and then express multiple premises and overwhelming evidence to solidify the validity of the claim. However, the speaker must also be capable of incorporating rhetoric into the speech by modifying the language, tone and gestures in a manner that enhances the persuasiveness of the argument (Kennedy, 2007). Thus, a great rhetorician can construct sound arguments with dialect and then adorn the language with rhetoric to most effectively persuade the audience to agree with the statement, accept the proposed claim, and take action according to the desires of the orator.

Aristotle also elaborated on the three species of rhetoric, which refer to the three primary genres and purposes of rhetorical devices. The first species is deliberative rhetoric. Deliberative rhetoric involves a speech or piece of writing in which the intention of the argument is to persuade the audience to take a particular action. Aristotle explains that deliberative rhetoric relates to future events, for the purpose of the speech or writing is to express arguments that focus on statements regarding the developments of the future and the specific action the audience should perform to provide the best outcome in the future (Kennedy, 2007). Deliberative rhetoric is utilized consistently by politicians, for the goal of politicians using rhetoric is to convince the audience to agree with their claims, take public action according to the argument, vote for them in the next election, and have legislation passed to influence the developments of the future.

The second species of rhetoric is the genre of judicial rhetoric. Judicial rhetoric entails language expressed in speech or writing with the purpose of persuading the audience regarding the level of justice or validity to an accusation. An essential feature that distinguishes judicial rhetoric from deliberative rhetoric is that the species of judicial rhetoric asserts an argument that focuses on events of the past (Kennedy, 2007). For instance, lawyers who are defending or prosecuting an accused person in a courtroom must express evidence to demonstrate the developments that occurred in the past, such as what happened, where it happened, how it happened, and who took what particular actions. The lawyer, in turn, must use dialect and rhetoric to express arguments and persuade the jury that his construction of the past is correct and that the defendant on trial is either innocent or guilty of the accusation being proposed. Thus, judicial rhetoric is utilized to assert the validity of accusation claims and to convey persuasive arguments regarding developments in the past.

Epideictic rhetoric is the third species of rhetoric. Epideictic rhetoric refers to persuasive statements in which the purpose of the argument is to extend praise or blame to the object of the speech. The focus of the praise or blame can be a diverse range of subjects, including a person, a group of people, or an event. Additionally, epideictic rhetoric is often utilized by artistic critics when expressing reviews of works of art, including music, literature, painting, and movie reviews. However, the most common examples of epideictic rhetoric are speeches designed for funeral orations, obituaries, graduation ceremonies, weddings, and political nomination speeches (Kennedy, 2007). When approving and praising a subject, the speaker employs dialect and rhetoric to express arguments that explain the reasons why the subject of the speech is beneficial and deserves compliments. In contrast, blaming or condemning the subject of the speech requires that the speaker express rhetorical arguments that elaborate on the reasons why the subject is detrimental and merits criticism. Thus, epideictic rhetoric enables a speaker or writer to combine dialect and rhetoric for the purposes of praising or blaming the subject matter of the speech.

The United States political process is replete with the use of rhetoric. Because the purpose of political speeches is often to persuade the audience to agree with a certain argument or opinion, politicians inevitably must utilize rhetorical devices to increase their chances of effectively convincing the audience to support a piece of legislation, to vote for them in the next election, or to fulfill a certain action. Although politicians should provide factual information and compelling evidence to persuade the audience regarding the validity of their claims, the significant impact that rhetoric has on persuading the public often encourages politicians to provide speeches that are abundant with rhetoric while lacking in evidential substance. For instance, to support the Iraq war, it was common for Republicans to vocalize rhetorical phrases that revolved around emotionally charged words, including “patriotism”, “freedom”, and “9/11.” Republicans also typically attack democratic and progressive policies by referring to the policies as “socialist.” Although this word does not convey a specific line of logical reasoning to support an argument that the given policy being attacked is detrimental to society, the mere stigmatization of the word “socialist” triggers an emotional response and stimulates hostile disapproval of the given policy or political figure. Democrats are also politicians and thus prone to use rhetoric to express their arguments and persuade the audience. For instance, although scientists have accumulated sufficient evidence to prove the validity of climate change claims, many democrats try to persuade the public to take action regarding climate change with rhetorical “save the planet” statements. Democrats also demonstrate rhetoric to express their policy arguments by repeating emotionally charged words and phrases, including “opportunity, “equality”, and “building a strong middle class.” Thus, politicians on both sides of the isle utilize rhetoric to express arguments, persuade people to agree with their claims, attack rivals, obtain reelection, and influence the future actions of the country.

Because rhetoric has a powerful influence over our species, Aristotle argues that the rhetorician must adhere to social responsibility. Aristotle is careful to remain neutral regarding the goodness or wickedness of rhetorical powers, for some great rhetoricians use their superior persuasive abilities to help improve the conditions of life for the community, while other great rhetoricians exercise their advanced rhetorical powers to instead benefit themselves while harming others. Thus, persuasive rhetorical devices can be used for productive purposes or destructive purposes, depending on the intentions of the person utilizing the devices (Rapp, 2002). As a result, Aristotle emphasizes that rhetoricians must be careful to use their powers in a way that improves the quality of life for the majority of people, that benefit the welfare of other people, and that help enhance the condition of society.

The powerful ability to combine dialect with rhetoric allows humans to influence the opinions and actions of other people. Great rhetoricians must understand the many different rhetorical devices and must be able to consistently utilize the particular devices that are most appropriate and effective for each given situation. The teachings of Aristotle have improved the skills of many rhetoricians over the millennia, for his work adequately elaborates on the primary features of rhetoric, the ability of rhetoric to compliment dialect and maximize the persuasive quality of an argument, and the importance of using the influential force of rhetoric with the purpose of benefiting our communities.

References

Aristotle. (n.d.). University of California Museum of Paleontology. Retrieved February 12, 2014, from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html

Kennedy, G. A. (2007). Aristotle: On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. (2. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rapp, C. (2002, May 2). Aristotle's Rhetoric. Stanford University. Retrieved February 13, 2014, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/#4.1