What does being human mean? The most important tools for the evolution of humans are those that allow us to be “decision-making animals capable to overrule [their] instincts.” Rhetoric was this tool for thousands years. Rhetoric can be used to explain and explore the unexplainable. It also allows us to convince others about the probabilities that are derived. The intellectual power of rhetoric cannot be matched by other arts, sciences, or communication tools.

Aristotle’s Rhetoric, named after its exclusive nature, is divided into three parts. In the first, Aristotle explains rhetoric and offers a definition that can be used for many purposes. Aristotle defines his definition of rhetoric as being able to “see and understand the persuasive, even if it is not obvious” in every case. Aristotle begins by defining rhetoric as “the ability to see the persuasive and the apparently persuasive” in any situation. Pericles was a Greek philosopher who lived over a hundred years before Aristotle. His “Funeral Oration”, however, is almost identical to Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric. Aristotle emphasized pathos, ethos and epideictic as effective ways of persuasion. His prescriptions for effective rhetoric seemed to be written according to the precise form “Funeral Oration”. Aristotle’s rhetorical theory, unique and original as it is, has its roots in the exploration of and dissertations about this topic over many years. Rhetoric had existed for a long time before Aristotle published its complex content. Since the beginning of communication, people have used rhetoric to express their needs and feelings. The rhetoric evolved in line with the sophistication of human communication. In ancient Greece the discourse developed into a social and political way of life. This society was characterized by “social, political and psychological contexts that shaped the speech into certain conventions shaped to meet audiences’ psychology and expectations.”

As soon as it became clear that rhetoric was needed in ancient Greek societies, many philosophers presented their theories. Plato’s works Gorgias and Apology (427-347 BCE), among others, discuss rhetoric. Plato, in Apology explains that rhetoric is dangerous, implicitly deceptive, dishonest and a danger. Socrates noted that while the rhetoric of his accusers to the jury and judge was impressive, it wasn’t truthful. Plato explains his theory about rhetoric being a tool anyone can use to fool someone else, even if they’re not trained. Plato argues that rhetoric can be abused for sin and evil. He then suggests that rhetoric conceals the truth by using flowery language and literary devices to manipulate emotions, as well deceptive psychology implications. Plato believed that intellectual discourse free of emotion produced more truth than rhetoric.

Plato, too, warns against the dangers in Gorgias. But, he also recognizes the power of the right application and mastery in rhetoric. In Gorgias a student who is interested in rhetoric asks his teacher what its powers are. The teacher replies, “Rhetoric embraces…all the arts!”. . . Plato’s character understands the power and uses rhetoric to win over large numbers of people. . . You can use rhetoric just like you do any other form of competence. . . Plato views the rhetorical act as neutral from a moral standpoint; its potential to cause harm depends on the rhetorician’s intent. Because rhetoric can be used to harm, the speaker and audience must use it very carefully. Plato may have been cautious about rhetoric because he only used it sparingly. Plato did not discuss rhetoric outside of the judicial realm. Plato believed that rhetoric could mask the facts because he assumed that the “facts” were what he wanted. He didn’t consider that rhetoric can be used in other situations, like deliberation or encomium. Aristotle was influenced to some extent by Plato’s view of rhetoric. Aristotle, however, expanded upon Plato theory.

Aristotle was influenced by the moderate views of Aristotle, as well as those of other philosophers. Isocrates had a very different view on rhetoric. Isocrates aimed to develop civic leaders who were noble. Isocrates thought that rhetoric was a powerful way to solve immediate practical problems, when only probable information was available. Isocrates urged people to learn rhetoric so they could create a functioning society, run by moral, honest statesmen. He explains this belief by saying “we cannot live together without the ability to persuade and express ourselves.” Isocrates is more optimistic than Plato about the influence sphere that rhetoric can create. Isocrates’ optimism comes from his confidence that people will use rhetoric for noble, ethical purposes. Isocrates writes in one of theses “The person who wishes to influence people will not ignore the matter concerning character. [He] would apply himself to establish a name of honor amongst fellow citizens”. Also, Isocrates wrote on the systematic building of a discourse. He says that a good speech has to have “a head (introduction), the torso (substantial arguments), and the feet (conclusion).

Aristotle’s unique position as a philosopher who lived at the same time as both Plato, and Isocrates allowed him to take elements from both philosophers and combine them into his own rhetorical theory. Aristotle borrowed Plato’s theory of rhetorical neutrality. Aristotle’s theory emphasizes the dualities of all situations. Aristotle explains that unlike other arts, rhetoric “reasons in opposing directions” and has “equal concern in opposing directions.” This means rhetoric can be used to benefit both sides in a situation. Plato was concerned by this fact. Aristotle, however, was less concerned with the misuse of rhetoric. Aristotle talked a lot more about the natures of rhetoric and rhetoricians than he did the natures of rhetoric. Aristotle said that if a person knew the methods of rhetorical persuasion he could see the deception and avoid it. Aristotle said that, for example, if someone is deceived by rhetorical techniques used to do evil, Aristotle considered it a success in the rhetorician’s use of these techniques and a failure in the audience not understanding rhetoric.

Isocrates was more influential on Aristotle in his theory than Plato. Plato limited the use of rhetoric in court, but Aristotle used it throughout life. Aristotle, just like Isocrates emphasized the importance of clear statements of the subject matter and the demonstration of that topic. Aristotle, like Isocrates also emphasized the use of any language device to appeal to different audiences. Aristotle, for example, advises that rhetoricians use euphemisms to replace offensive words to keep audiences happy. He says “[when] praising] it is important to use each term in the most positive sense. For example: [one] should describe an irascible or excitable individual as “straightforward”. An arrogant or exasperated person should be described as “high-minded.” Plato and Isocrates, respectively, would probably have considered this deception.

Aristotle’s theory on rhetoric incorporates many ideas from the other theories, but also introduces new and insightful ideas. These ideas seem more plausible to me and more applicable for contemporary rhetoric.

Works Cited

No changes need to be made to this phrase.

Aristotle. Aristotle’s Rhetoric Trans. George A. Kennedy. New York University Press, 1991.

Horwitz, Linda. Lecture. Western Rhetorical tradition. Lake Forest College in Lake Forest, IL. October 2nd. Nov. 2005.

Packet for Communications, edited Linda Horwitz. Pp. 67

Plato. Apology. Trans. Benjamin Jewett. Linda Horwitz from Lake Forest College.