ENGL 6166: Rhetorical Theory » January 25th: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 1

January 25th: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 1

Announcements

Plan for the Evening

Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 1

Aristotle Highlights

A way I describe Aristotle is “the great organizer.” He was particularly concerned (according to my interpretation of the historical record) with explaining his philosophy on judicial rhetoric. However, he also has much to say about other types of rhetoric. Let’s consider the three genera (or species) of rhetoric according to Aristotle (1.3.5, Kennedy p. 48; Part 3, para. 1 Online); Chapter 3):

  • Deliberative (political): deliberate about a future action in the best interests of the state.
  • Judicial (forensic): prosecution or defense in court.
  • Epideictic (demonstrative, ceremonial): speeches of praise or blame on someone or thing: often ceremonial but not seeking immediate action.

Major Aristotelian quotes:

  • Rhetoric and dialectic:
    “Rhetoric is an antistrophos* to dialectic; for both are concerned with such things as are, to a certain extent, within the knowledge of all people and belong to no separately defined science” (1.1.1, Kennedy p. 30; Part 1, para. 1 Online)
    *counterpart, correlative
  • “12. but rhetoric is useful, [first] because the true and the just are by nature stronger than their opposites.” (1.1.1, Kennedy p. 35; Part 1, para. 7 Online; Chapter 1-[1355a])
    • Kennedy points out that “Aristotle believed that truth was grounded in nature (physis) and capable of apprehension by reason” (p. 35, note 23).
  • Aristotle defines rhetoric:
    “Let rhetoric be [defined as] an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion” (1.2.1, Kennedy p. 37; Part 2, para. 1 Online)
  • Three modes of persuasion (Aristotle 1.2.4, Kennedy p. 38; Part 2, para. 3 Online; Chapter 2)
    • Ethos: “[There is persuasion] through character whenever the speech is spoken in such a way as to make the speaker worthy of credence; for we believe fair-minded people to a greater extent and more quickly [than we do others] on all subjects in general and completely so in cases where there is not exact knowledge but room for doubt.” (Aristotle 1.2.4, Kennedy p. 38; Part 2, para. 3 Online)
    • Pathos (Aristotle 1.2.5, Kennedy p. 39; Part 2, para. 4 Online; Chapter 2-[1356a]): “[There is persuasion] through the hearers when they are led to feel emotion [pathos] by the speech.”
    • Logos (Aristotle 1.2.6, Kennedy p. 39; Part 2, para. 5 Online; Chapter 2-[1356b]): “Persuasion occurs through the arguments [logoi] when we show the truth or the apparent truth from whatever is persuasive in each case.”

Syllogisms and Enthymemes:

  • “A syllogism is wholly from propositions, and the enthymeme is a syllogism consisting of propositions expressed” (Aristotle 1.3.7, Kennedy p. 50, italics mine; Part 3, para. 5 Online)
    Kennedy notes that proposition may not be expressed but assumed.
    • “I {Aristotle} call a rhetorical syllogism an enthymeme” (1.2.8, Kennedy p. 40; Part 2, para. 5 Online) 3rd sentence down
    • In Aristotle’s case, enthymemes deal in probabilities (1.2.14, Kennedy p. 42; Part 2, para. 9 Online) and are used for persuading as opposed to demonstrating a truth.
    • Consider an enthymeme as such:
      *Major Premise (assumed by audience)
      *Minor Premise (assumed by audience–either the Major Premise or Minor Premise is assumed)
      Therefore, a likely conclusion or a probable conclusion.
  • Modern view of enthymeme
    • The word “expressed” in the above quotation (1.3.7; “expressed” is not in Part 3, para. 5 Online) should be “implied” because, many scholars agree, that an enthymeme is a syllogism with an assumed or implied major or minor premise.
    • For instance,
      Socrates is mortal because he’s human.
  • Syllogism: an argument consisting of a Major Premise, a Minor Premise, and a necessary Conclusion
    • All men are mortal;
      Socrates is a man;
      Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
    • The above is the classic example of a syllogism.

The study of rhetoric and philosophy is quite daunting but highly rewarding. I encourage all of you to delve deeper into rhetoric and philosophy. At a basic level, these fields analyze and contemplate what makes us uniquely human–our ability to think. What else makes us uniquely human?

Rhetoric and Sociology

Someone once claimed that my worldview (although they meant pedagogical and scholarly disposition) was sociological (meaning I’d be banned in Florida…). After trying to explain that all disciplines have a rhetoric, a way of communicating knowledge, it dawned on me that I could argue that all disciplines stem from rhetoric. Now, some scholars critique the idea that all philosophical tradition should read as footnotes to Plato (here’s the direct quotation from Alfred North Whitehead), but, because of the emphasis Western culture places on classical rhetoric, it’s safe to say (or, more accurately, argue) that rhetoric is an interdisciplinary study.

  • What do Plato and Aristotle do when they claim that this or that is believable?
  • By whom is this or that claim believable?

Let’s pause from a wider class discussion and freewrite or note what your community knows or believes. If it helps to think politically, that’s fine. What are some claims that “go without saying,” beliefs that are deeply rooted in social consciousness?

Several Terms to Know

The following list isn’t exhaustive, just introductory. The terms below are major terms for rhetoric:

  • ethos: the presentation of one’s character
  • pathos: appeal to emotions
  • logos: appeal to reason or logic
  • eidos: specific topics
  • idiai: specific proofs
  • koina: commonalities (Kennedy, p. 50)
  • pistis (pisteis, pl): proof
  • telos: objective, end
  • topos: the “place” where a speaker may look for the available means of persuasion.
    Note: in modern usage, topoi has come to mean “commonplaces”

Aristotle on Judicial vs Legislative Practice and Validity

Throughout On Rhetoric (and much of the Ancient Greek works), Aristotle references the courts and democracy. While an explication of jurisprudence is beyond the scope of this class, thinking critically about laws, justice, and “democratic” society are well within our scope. Below are passages that mention the laws and democracy:

  • “…legislation results from consideration over much time, while judgments are made at the moment [of a trial or debate], so it is difficult for the judges to determine justice and benefits fairly.” (1.1.7, Kennedy p. 32; Part 1, para. 3 Online; Chapter 1-[1354b])
  • “A member of a democratic assembly is an example of one judging about future happenings, a juror an example of one judging the past.” (1.3.2, Kennedy p. 48; Part 3, para. 2 Online; Chapter 3-[1358b])
    • “…for all speakers praise and blame things, both reminding [the audience] of the past and projecting the course of the future.” (1.3.4, Kennedy pp. 48-49; Part 3, para. 2 Online; Chapter 3-[1358b, para. 2])
    • Kennedy notes (p. 49, note 81) that Aristotle’s attempt to associate the “three species” with a particular time is problematic.
  • “for example, democracy not only becomes weaker when its [principle of equality is] relaxed so that finally it leads to oligarchy but also if the principle is too rigidly applied.” (1.4.12, Kennedy pp. 55; Part 4, para. 8 Online; Chapter 4-[1360b, para. 8])
  • “2. for all people are persuaded by what is advantageous, and preserving the constitution is advantageous.” (1.8.2, Kennedy p. 73; Part 8, para. 1 Online; Chapter 8-[1366a, para. 1])
  • “Law is either specific [idion] or common [koinon]. I call specific the written law under which people live in a polis and common whatever, though unwritten, seems to be agreed to among all.” (1.10.3, Kennedy p. 84; Part 10, para. 2 Online; Chapter 10-[1368b, para. 2])
    • All citizens…of course.
    • Kennedy distinguishes this with the Anglo-American tradition of common law, “which is the law of precedent and equity established by judicial decisions” (p. 84, note 183).
  • “And [wrongs are greater when committed] in a place where wrongdoers are being punished, which is what perjurers do; for where would they not do wrong if they do it even in the law court?” (1.14.6, Kennedy p. 101; Part 14, para. 1 Online; Chapter 14-[1375a])

Contemporary Enthymeme

I assume we’re in the second half of class by now.

If you followed the political theatre surrounding the 2012 presidential election, you were inundated with rhetorical examples (as you are in all campaigns). Here’s one from Newt Gingrich comparing Barack Obama to Saul Alinsky:

“The centerpiece of this campaign, I believe, is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinsky.”

Let’s break this down into two parts: 1) American Exceptionalism 2) Saul Alinsky.

1) American Exceptionalism

Essentially, Gingrich is claiming his campaign (Gingrich ran for president in 2012) and, therefore, he himself are proponents of American exceptionalism. The syllogism could look like this:

  • Assumed Major Premise = {The ideal candidate for the presidency is the one who embraces American exceptionalism};
    Minor Premise* = I [Gingrich] embrace American exceptionalism;
    therefore, I [Gingrich] am the ideal candidate for the presidency.

The Enthymeme could look like this:

  • Gingrich is the ideal candidate because he embraces American exceptionalism.
  • The assumed premise is that the ideal candidate must embrace American exceptionalism.

2) Saul Alinsky

Essentially, Gingrich is claiming Saul Alinsky is a radical, and he was a community organizer. He is attacking Obama for being like Saul Alinsky, emphatically stating Obama’s a radical. The syllogism could look like this:

  • All community organizers are radical;
    President Obama was a community organizer;
    therefore, President Obama is a radical.

The Enthymeme could look like this:

  • President Obama is a radical because he was a community organizer.
  • As Kennedy claims (p. 50), audiences will assume some propositions and, therefore, conclude the way the speaker wants them to conclude.
  • In Gingrich’s case, he’s told his audience Saul Alinsky, a community organizer, was a radical.

Let’s think of some other examples. Notice how syllogisms use absolutes. Aristotle believed in universal truths, but he also recognized probabilities and likely conclusions based on generalities. Let’s think about generalizations for a bit.

Issues about Democracy

Time permitting, let’s consider Aristotle’s discussions on Democracy in Book 1. Here’s a section to take a look at the following passage:

  • “except for the best constitution, all the others are destroyed by loosening or tightening [their basic principles of governance]; for example, democracy not only becomes weaker when its [principle of equality is] relaxed so that finally it leads to oligarchy but also if the principle is too rigidly applied” (1.4.12, Kennedy p. 55)
  • “all constitutions, except the best one of all, are destroyed both by not being pushed far enough and by being pushed too far. Thus, democracy loses its vigour, and finally passes into oligarchy, not only when it is not pushed far enough, but also when it is pushed a great deal too far” (Part 4, para. 8 online).

Let’s consider the pragmatism of this and how a contemporary audience might think about “radical” democracy. Also, what about Aristotle’s point regarding oligarchy?

  • How can democracy be pushed too far?
    • Think about free speech and expression. Also consider mob rule or citizen expectations.
    • For instance, access to clean water is probably a “right” no one will dispute. However, do we have a right to sparkling water?
  • Because Citizens United v. FEC claims corporations are individuals, they have “equal” free speech.
  • Do refugees have a right to the pursuit of happiness? If so, why are they blocked from entering the United States?
    • How far will you get debating the above situation?

A Rhetorical Analysis

Cy Knoblauch’s book Discursive Ideologies will provide us with meaning heuristics for analyzing meaning making, but, for your Mini-Rhetorical Analysis–due in 4 weeks on 2/23–these ancient figures will be sufficient for providing the vocabulary for a rhetorical analysis. Check the Assignments Page for specifics. Tonight (or next week), we can review paragraphs for examples:

Forge Ahead on Books 2 & 3 of On Rhetoric

We may refer back to Book 1 next week, but the main focus will be Books 2 & 3. One reason I feel you should read the primary text and try to follow Aristotle’s arguments with as little “noise” as possible from your own filters is because following his argument prepares you for following the arguments of our later figures. Essentially, you’re training yourself to adopt the author’s way of thinking. I recognize this is difficult, but you can do it!