The μῦθος of Pernicious Rhetoric: The Platonic Possibilities of λογός in Aristotle's Rhetoric (original) (raw)
Related papers
This essay argues that Plato’s use of narrative conceals within Socrates’ explicit rejection of rhetorican implicit authorial endorsement, manifested in the dialectical and rhetorical failures surrounding Socrates’ deliberations over logos. I suggest that Aristo- tle’s Rhetoric is consonant with Plato’s view in its general affirmation of rhetoric’s power,utility, and necessity as well as in its specific recommendations regarding logos. I employ Martin Heidegger’s explication of logos in Aristotle to illuminate how the term conforms to Plato’s implicit position regarding logos and rhetoric. This inter- pretation entails an expanded meaning of logos as it is found in Rhetoric, assigning it a more primary, pre-logical, oral content.
Reviewing Rhetoric in the Classical Period--Plato and Aristotle
2015
Plato and Aristotle are key figures in the study of rhetoric. Classical period had been known as the era where rhetoric emerged as the influential language existence. Experts on rhetoric had discussed deeply about the history of rhetoric from the classical period up to the renaissance. In this writing, the focus of the discussion is in the classical period. The reviews being discussed in this writing are mainly derived from ongoing discussion on rhetoric.
ARISTOTLE AS CRITIC OF PLATO’S RHETORIC? Some conclusions, questions and implications
2020
Plato is often understood to be merely an outspoken critic of rhetoric and Aristotle a systematizer of rhetoric. The reality is more complex. Plato’s criticism is not of rhetoric per se but of a particular (Sophistic) kind of rhetoric; his work actually evidences a keen desire to enshrine a true rhetoric, one that will enable instruction in truth to happen. Nor is Aristotle a critic of Plato; rather, Aristotle provides a systematic approach to political discourse and human language as it is in practice. Aristotle thus establishes both the foundations for analysis of democratic political discourse and the analytical groundwork for the much later analysis of “ordinary language.”
Aristotle's Rhetoric _ SEP-Entry_new_ (2022)
2022
theory (see van Eemeren 2013 and, more generally, dialogical logic). Some authors have stressed the Rhetoric's affinity to Aristotle's ethical theory (see e.g. Woerner 1990), while others were attracted by Aristotle's rhetorical account of metaphor (see e.g. Ricoeur 1996 and, more generally, metaphor). Most significantly, philosophers and scholars began to turn their attention to the Rhetoric's account of the passions or emotions, which is not only richer than in any other Aristotelian treatise, but was also seen as manifesting an early example of cognitive, judgement-based accounts of emotions (see e.g. Nussbaum 1996, Konstan 2006 and, more generally, §5 of emotion). 1. Aristotle's Works on Rhetoric 2. The Structure of the Rhetoric 3. Rhetoric as a Counterpart to Dialectic 4. The Nature and Purpose of Rhetoric 4.1 The Definition of Rhetoric 4.2 What Rhetoric Is Useful for 4.3 Can Aristotle's Rhetoric Be Misused? 4.4 Is Aristotle's Conception of Rhetoric Normative? 5. The Three Means of Persuasion 5.1 Persuasion Through the Character of the Speaker 5.2 Persuasion Through the Emotions of the Hearer 5.3 Persuasion Through the Argument Itself 5.4 Is There an Inconsistency in Aristotle's Rhetorical Theory? 6. The Enthymeme 6.1 The Concept of Enthymeme 6.2 Formal Requirements 6.3 Enthymemes as Dialectical Arguments 6.4 The Brevity of the Enthymeme 6.5 Different Types of Enthymemes 7. The Topoi 7.1 The (Lacking) Definition of 'Topos' Aristotle's Rhetoric 2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 7.2 The Word 'Topos' and the Technique of Places 7.3 The Ingredients and the Function of Topoi 7.4 Rhetorical Topoi 8. Style: How to Say Things with Words 8.1 The Virtue of Style 8.2 Aristotelian Metaphors Glossary of Selected Terms Bibliography Translations, Editions and Commentaries Collections Monographs and Articles Academic Tools Other Internet Resources Related Entries Supplements: Judgemental and Non-Judgemental Accounts of Aristotelian Emotions The Thesis that Enthymemes are Relaxed Inferences The Brevity of the Enthymeme The Variety of Topoi in the Rhetoric 1. Aristotle's Works on Rhetoric The work that has come down to us as Aristotle's Rhetoric or Art of Rhetoric consists of three books, while the ancient catalogue of the Aristotelian works, reported e.g. by Diogenes Laertius, mentions only two books on rhetoric (probably our Rhetoric I & II), plus two further books on style (perhaps our Rhetoric III?). Whereas most modern authors agree that at least the core of Rhetoric I & II presents a coherent rhetorical theory, the two themes of Rhetoric III (style/diction and the partition of speeches) are not mentioned in the original agenda of Rhetoric I & II. The
PHILOSOPHY OF RHETORIC IN ANCIENT GREECE: FROM HOMER TO PLATO
Greek rhetoric makes the most of its relation with myth, poetry, and philosophy. Of course, this is no surprise at all. For any emergent cultural space, mixing myth with reason, vision with ideation, ecstatic experience with the sobriety of rigorous thinking, must be confronted with its foundational strives, as well as with its idiosyncrasies. The Greek approach on rhetoric seems to favor both. It is a means to a cultural development paradigm, as well as a subject for dismissing the outward appearance that rhetoric may be suitable for a Greek way of life. Between Homer and Plato, what is at stake may amount to a sound philosophy of rhetoric that sifts through Greek energy, valor, wisdom, even prejudice. Does Greek rhetoric embody the road to a necessary social and intellectual (trans)formation, or perhaps the vitiated instrument of the morally corrupt? Or maybe a little bit of both...
Plato's Denunciation of Rhetoric in the Phaedrus
Rhetoric Review, 2004
Contrary to a prevailing view within rhetoric and composition circles that finds a positive view of rhetoric in the Phaedrus, / contend that Plato mockingly de nounces rhetoric in the Phaedrus. To support this claim, I argue that the Phaedrus is an unmistakable response to Isocrates' Against the Sophists and needs to be understood as part of this dynamic dialogue and that in the Phaedrus Plato is distinguishing his philosophical method, as he conceives it, from Isocrates' pseudo-philosophical method (as conceived by Plato). I provide paral lels between Against the Sophists and the Phaedrus and then explain the distinc tion between Isocrates ' and Plato 's respective conceptions of what the philoso pher is and should do and between each writer's philosophical method.1 Many scholars of contemporary rhetorical and composition studies contend that Plato in the Phaedrus advocates a positive view of rhetoric that has been dubbed philosophical or dialectical rhetoric and that Plato is to be understood as a rhetorician in his own right.2 Bizzell and Herzberg, for example, claim that "[t]he Gorgias develops Plato's most extensive condemnation of false rhetoric, while the Phaedrus displays his most complete realization of true rhetoric" (56). Kathleen Welch also claims that Plato in the Phaedrus "is forthright in his inter pretation of rhetoric's positive force" (94). Welch states further that Plato's rhet oric relies upon "the active interchange of rhetoric and dialectic between two sides actively engaged in a search" (100). As C. Jan Swearingen explains it more recently, "Plato does not abandon rhetoric entirely as a mode of discourse," but instead, he argues for a philosophical and ethical rhetoric that is dialogical and dialectical, that draws upon Socrates' presence in the agora and symposia and his attempts to reintegrate the burgeoning specializa tions of the sophists?in logic, cosmology, epistemology, mathemat ics, and language theory?with the life of daily culture in the sym posia of educated Athenians. (526)
The Consistency of Plato’s Treatment of Rhetoric
dospontos, 2024
Commentators of Plato tend to assume that the philosopher changed his perception of rhetoric over time. Generally, such commentators focus on the critiques against rhetoric in the Gorgias and the claim of a philosophical rhetoric in the Phaedrus to display a fundamental discontinuity in Plato’s treatment of rhetoric. In contrast, I aim to demonstrate a fundamental continuity of Plato’s considerations on rhetoric, supplanting the textual evidence commonly analyzed in this debate with some passages from the Apology, Symposium, and Laws. Both in an early dialogue, such as the Apology, and in a much later one, such as the Laws, the same procedure is at work: a careful distinction between genuine rhetoric and its counterfeits. If rhetoric allies itself with philosophy, turns into a ôÝ÷íç, and is guided by the truth and the good, Plato embraces it. On the other hand, if rhetoric rejects this alignment, foundation, and orientation, it is condemned. Keywords: Plato, Rhetoric, Philosophy, Truth, Persuasion, Dialectic. A consistencia do tratamento de Platao a retorica Resumo: Comentadores de Platao tendem a assumir que o filosofo alterou sua percepcao sobre a retorica no decurso do tempo. Geralmente, tais comentadores se concentram nas criticas a retorica no Gorgias e na reivindicacao de uma retorica filosofica no Fedro para constatar uma descontinuidade fundamental no tratamento platonico a retorica. De maneira oposta, o meu objetivo e demonstrar uma continuidade fundamental nas consideracoes platonicas sobre a retorica, suplantando as evidencias textuais comumente analisadas neste debate com algumas passagens da Apologia, Banquete e Leis. Tanto num dialogo inicial, como a Apologia, quanto num muito posterior, como as Leis, esta em operacao o mesmo procedimento: uma distincao cuidadosa entre retorica genuina e suas contrafaccoes. Se a retorica se aliar a filosofia, constituir-se enquanto techn. e orientar-se pela verdade e pelo bem, entao e acolhida por Platao. Em contrapartida, se a retorica rejeitar tal alinhamento, fundamentacao e orientacao, entao e condenada. Palavras-chave: Platao, Retorica, Filosofia, Verdade, Persuasao, Dialetica.
The Nature and Goal of Aristotle's Rhetoric
The Nature and Goal of Aristotle's Rhetoric, 2009
The Purpose of Aristotle's Rhetoric and the different approachescombined within this work. “The Nature and Goals of Rhetoric”, in: G. Anagnostopoulos (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Aristotle, Blackwell, Oxford 2009, 579-595
The Three Faces of Greek and Aristotelian Rhetoric
European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2017
The need for the persuasion is often informed by a dire or grave situation which one needs to wriggle out from. Persuasion may also be necessitated by a person’s disposition to a subject, development, or topic in view. The art of persuasion through speech is what scholars, ancient and modern, call rhetoric or oratory. The Greek traditional theorists, who invented rhetoric, divided the art into three types: the judicial (dicanic or forensic), the deliberative (symbouleutic) and the demonstrative (epideictic). Broadly, Greek rhetoric also has a tripartite part: invention, arrangement and style. Similarly, by Aristotelian theory, rhetoric is the art of persuasion which functions by three means: by appeal to people’s reason (logos); by the appeal to their emotions (pathos) and by the appeal of the speaker’s personality or character (ethos). What exactly did the Greeks and, indeed, Aristotle mean by these terms and their functions? This paper, while highlighting the general conception of the Greek rhetoric and its three-way nature, surveys the Aristotelian tripartite division and functionality of rhetoric through a simple method of content analysis of selected ancient and modern texts. It submits that a rhetor (rhetorician/orator) is not firm in his trade if he does not artfully possess and execute the Aristotelian three modes of persuasion in contexts of necessity or grave situations. Keywords: Greek rhetoric, oratory, Aristotle, ethos, pathos, logs.
Plato’s Ambivalence about Rhetoric in the Gorgias
The main thesis of the present paper is that Plato's attitude towards rhetoric appears to have been complex to the point of ambivalent, for as one reads the Gorgias, one cannot avoid getting the impression that in spite of his overt castigation of rhetoric, the philosopher did covertly resort to it in the very dialogue. Thus, the article will seek to demonstrate that even though Platonic Socrates repudiated rhetoric understood as political demagoguery and cynical adulation, he did employ some sort of art of persuasion designed to inveigle his interlocutors into accepting a worldview that must have appeared extremely paradoxical for the then mentality.