Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was a great philosopher and student of Plato. His views usually opposed Plato’s, especially on the topic of rhetoric. After Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and tutored Prince Alexander of Macedon. Upon returning to Athens, Aristotle founded a school, the Lyceum, where he taught many subjects, including rhetoric.
In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he goes into detail about what rhetoric is, as well as the different branches of appeal. He describes how these different appeals can be implemented in speech to be more effective. Aristotle claims that rhetoric is merely a form of persuasion that can be used to help truth prevail. Furthermore, he explains that rhetoric and persuasion are not unethical or deceptive because they can be used for good.
There are many definitions of rhetoric, and they will change depending on who you ask. According to Aristotle, rhetoric is “…public speaking designed to persuade…” (Aristotle 132). Aristotle also wrote how the persuasive appeals—ethos, pathos, and logos—are used in speech to persuade an audience. While I agree with this statement, I also believe there is more to rhetoric than just persuasion. Rhetoric shouldn’t only be used to persuade an audience; it should also be used to get a point across in an effective manner. Many people, when trying to convey something to an audience, spend too much time on filler content. However, if they organized their content in a more effective way, they will be able to convey their ideas more effectively in a timely manner. If we look further into Aristotle’s appeals of persuasion, however, we can see that he touches on this exact idea, especially with logos. Aristotle also believes that, if used correctly, rhetoric will help the truth to win. He explains, “Rhetoric is useful (1) because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites, so that if the decision of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly” (Aristotle 135). I love this claim by Aristotle because it ties logic and his theory together extremely well. If truth is supposed to win but it doesn’t, it can be accredited to the poor delivery of the speaker. This is because the speaker did not use rhetorical appeals appropriately to win over the audience. Even though rhetoric can be used to allow the truth to surmount lies, it will not always work. No matter how well a speaker utilizes rhetorical appeals in their speech, a biased or stubborn audience cannot be persuaded. For example, if a jury is filled with jurors who are biased towards one side of the argument, no amount of well-put together rhetoric will be able to persuade them towards the other side of the argument. In my opinion, this is a major limiting factor on the effectiveness of rhetoric in persuasion.
Questions and Conclusions:
While Aristotle does an amazing job of explaining rhetoric and the various appeals and devices within it, I still have some questions regarding the effectiveness of rhetoric. At what point will the opinions of the audience always stay rigid, no matter how effectively a speaker uses rhetorical appeals in speech? Is there more to rhetoric than just persuasion? Personally, I believe there is more to rhetoric than persuasion. While rhetoric does include aspects of persuasion, we need to focus on a speaker’s delivery, style, and observations / analyses about the audience as well. Lastly, what other constraints are there within rhetoric that limits communication?
Works Cited
Aristotle. Rhetoric. 350 BCE.