Plato’s and Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric

The Contrasting Views of Plato and Aristotle on Rhetoric

The task contrasts and compares Plato’s and Aristotle’s definitions of rhetoric. Rhetoric is a phrase used to define the art of discourse in which a speaker or writer attempts to enlighten, persuade, or encourage specific audiences in specific situations. Rhetoric has played an important part in the European tradition, both as a subject of academic study and as a constructive practice considered civic.

Aristotle’s Definition

Aristotle provides the finest definition of the term. In this scenario, sees it as a mirror of both political and logical components. He defines it as the ability to observe the available means of persuasion in each particular situation. Rhetoric offers investigations for developing, understanding and discovering arguments for specific circumstances. This brings about his three persuasive audience appeals. They entail logos, pathos, and ethos.

Plato’s Definition

When it comes to the case of Plato, he listed the differences between true and false rhetoric in a variety of dialogues. Specifically, he states them in Phaedrus and Gorgias dialogues. In this case, he disputes the sophistic belief that the art of persuasion can totally exist without the presence of the skill of dialect. Further, he went on to claim that because the scholars appeal just to what looks possible, they do not advance their audience as well as the students. Instead, they flatter them with what is pleasing to them and what they actually want to hear. Much as his criticism of rhetoric was quite evident in the case of Gorgias, it is not the same when it comes to the case of Phaedrus. In this case, he suggests of the likeliness of a real art in which rhetoric relies on the knowledge that came from dialect. Further, the same knowledge is the one that depends upon a rhetoric that is informed in a dialectic manner to please the major character. His hostility when it comes to the case of rhetoric, as well as the sophists, is derived from their inflated claims to educate virtue and dependence on appearances. In addition, it is also due to the fact that Socrates, who was his teacher, ended up being sentenced to death following the efforts from the sophists.

Rhetoric in Gorgias and Phaedrus

In Gorgias, the distinction is more mixed up, and the argument is also seen to be less developed. According to Socrates, rhetoric is only utilized in the situation of imparting beliefs instead of instilling genuine knowledge. From this perspective, rhetoric has been set in a manner that it is in the exact disagreement to philosophy. In this case, the prior is meant to be an item of manipulating persons whereas, for the latter, it is intended to getting to the truth. At the same time, it is meant to show nobility as well as the integrity of personal objective. Therefore, it is true to say that most of Gorgias is linked to the assessment of the doubtful moral values that Plato has the belief that they can be linked to the sophist rhetoricians. In Phaedrus, he has completely gone soft regarding his depiction on the matter. According to this case, Plato views rhetoric as a form of ’techne’ that can be utilized to either do what is good or do what is bad. The opinions contained in the Phaedrus are mostly taken to be more practical and nuanced in comparison to those contained in Gorgias. The major difference is whether rhetoric on its own is a skill or not. However, there are various strategies in which one may utilize it. It may be a way of persuasion irrespective of the content or as a way of dialect between two or more persons whose major interest is acquiring the truth irrespective of the one who wins. The slightly refined effect is the popular Platonic aspect of truth as being an absolute rather than something that has been agreed upon or constructed socially.

Aristotle’s Definition of Rhetoric

When it comes to Aristotle’s definition of Rhetoric, there are three major modes of persuasion. They entail ethos, pathos, and logos. For the case of ethos, this refers to the strategy of persuasion that deals with the character of the speaker. The speaker intends to remain credible. Aristotle considers three prerequisites necessary for an individual to appear credible. They are empathy, good intention, and competence. Ethos is seen during a performance. Further, the ethos of a speaker is normally transmitted through how he or she portrays himself or herself and mostly regarding the paraverbal and nonverbal aspects. If a person utilizes specific aspects, be it knowingly or unknowingly, it is not relevant for analysis because the outcome is the objective of the rhetoric assessment. Therefore, there does not exist the aspect of ’bad’ or ’good’ in how one portrays him or herself. This is because every deed needs to be interpreted in the right context of the speech or circumstance. Because of that, the terms ’functional’ and ’dysfunctional’ seem more suitable for the analysis of an individual’s performance. The affecting factors in ethos entail the aspects of vocabulary, slang, clothes, and popularity.

When it comes to pathos, it entails the emotional effect on an audience. The objective of every speech is to persuade the audience and thus, it is essential to place the audience in the suitable states of emotions. Aristotle discovered that it is of essence that every speaker knows the emotions that exist and the situation in which they can be provoked. He stated emotions as the feelings that change people in a way that influences their judgment. A speaker has various ways to provoke emotions in an audience. At the same time, it is essential that there exists basic knowledge regarding the audience. There are specific tactics as well as the style of presentation that develop emotions that minimize the ability of an audience to be critical. The aim of pathos is to minimize the capability of the audience to judge. A way of achieving this is by the use of the right figures of speech. The figures can be utilized to place specific content as well as arguments in the background. By doing so, the speaker has the ability to enhance the efficiency of delivery by utilizing the strong parts and reducing the weak ones.

The last aspect to consider is ethos. According to Aristotle, this is the appeal towards reasoning that is logical. Therefore, a speaker intends to present an argument in a way that it seems sound to an audience. It involves both the argument and the contents of the speech. Just like in the previous cases, it is intended to develop a persuasive impact. When it comes to arguing, the various modes of proof as well as reasoning are of unique interest. There exist two kinds of proof; the natural and the artificial proof. The natural proofs are the ones that are linked to specific information such as the one found in documents. On the contrary, the artificial spoof refers to the ones that are developed with a mixture of information. It should also be noted that Aristotle stressed the aspect of enthymematic reasoning as something that is major to the process of the rhetorical invention. An enthymeme is considered as something that is persuasive because the audience offers the missing premise. Since the audience has the ability to offer the premise, there is a high chance for them to be convinced by the message.

Conclusion

As members of the liberal democratic society, I believe that the two definitions need to persuade people. However, I believe that the best definition to follow would be the one of Aristotle. In comparison to Plato, he offers a better guide to creating and offering persuasive arguments as well as messages. In delivering messages to an audience, it is always necessary for a speaker to display the right character, the right emotions, and logical reasoning towards a specific issue. When it comes to the case of Plato, he criticizes all of the persons whom may attempt to use wit and eloquence as a means of convincing people to accept an opinion. This only leaves Aristotle’s point of view as the most suitable for use in the society.