Aristotle's Rhetorical Theory: Persuasion, Ethics, and Legacy

Introduction

When Socrates was put to death in his own city, after failing to adequately argue for his life in court, Plato became very skeptical about the power of argumentation to uphold that which was good. Throughout history people have surely engaged in arguments, and throughout history they have either succeeded or resigned themselves to the entire messy affair. Plato leaned toward the latter view. His pupil, Aristotle, however, took the opposite track. "He promises to do his philosophical work in a place from which Plato and Parmenides had spent their careers contriving an exit. He insists that he will find his truth inside what we say, see, and believe..." (Haskins, 2004, p. 3). Aristotle is likely not the first philosopher to argue from a rational, humanistic perspective, nor to suggest that debates and arguments should be performed as an art form known as rhetoric. He is, however, the most influential.

Throughout history, Aristotle's Rhetoric has been standard reading and a standard influence on the development of philosophy. "'The Rhetoric of Aristotle is a practical psychology, and the most helpful book extant for writers of prose and for speakers of every sort,' so Lane Cooper [said], startlingly, in 1932, and others have been found to echo the judgment" (in Ferguson, 1999). Further back, historically, in 1810 Edward Copleston declaimed that Aristotle was "a magazine of intellectual riches... The whole is a textbook of human feeling; a storehouse of taste; an exemplar of condensed and accurate, but uniformly clear and candid, reasoning" (in Ferguson, 1999). The rediscovery of his work has been credited by some as the spark which prompted the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, as author Rubenstein writes in his histories: "a turning point, perhaps the turning point — in Western intellectual history..." (in Miles, 2004).

Aristotle produced a great number of works, many of which are no longer particularly interesting to scientists today (most of his understanding of the natural world proved flawed). His theoretical works, such as the Rhetoric, remain vital to our understanding of both the ancient political world and the modern one. Aristotle's keen understanding of human nature has allowed generations of rhetors to convince their audiences of whatever proposition they find most apt.

Aristotle's body of work is dauntingly lengthy, including multiple pieces on analysis, ethics, and logic. However, the work known as his Rhetoric is substantially shorter and relatively straightforward. In this work, he presents a theory of what constitutes rhetoric as an art form aimed at the capacity to persuade, the usefulness of rhetoric, the necessary elements of persuasion — including appeals to emotion, status, and logic — and proceeds to present a wide range of specific strategies for convincing an audience of one's point. Both the theory and the strategies remain in use today.

Aristotle's Personal Work on Rhetoric

According to Aristotle's opening line, "Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic" (Aristotle, 350 BCE, 1.1). Though books could be — and have been — written on the implications of this line, it can be understood simply enough. Rhetoric, the art of appealing to crowds in order to sway them to one's cause, is closely related to personal arguments (dialogues) between two individuals. "All men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit" (Aristotle, 350 BCE, 1.1).

Aristotle continues to suggest that the study of how to argue successfully — rather than with mere instinct — to an audience is an art, and one that is absolutely necessary. He advances four reasons why rhetoric ought to be studied by a responsible and self-interested member of society: (1) for righteousness to prevail, it must be presented appropriately so that its worth will be recognized; (2) many audiences are not capable of making logical and educated decisions, so one must be able to understand their motivations and convictions in order to explain the logical and righteous in a fashion that will be understandable to the crowd; (3) only studied rhetoric can argue both sides of an argument and hence allow us to discover the weaknesses of our own position — mere conviction does not have this advantage; and (4) it is a shame to be unable to defend oneself and one's position in a rational and persuasive fashion.

Aristotle makes two very important points in his discussion of the necessity of rhetoric that have occasionally gone unnoticed among his successors. First, he argues that "things that are true and things that are better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe in" (Aristotle, 350 BCE, 1.1). Additionally, he holds that rhetoric is quite capable of being used in the service of evil even as it can be used in the service of good, but that this is a risk one takes with any valuable craft, from health and wealth to intelligence and beauty. Rhetoric, he claims, is universally applicable to human endeavors, it is useful, and it is generally beneficial — and in these aspects it resembles all other arts.

Aristotle continues to give more direct advice on the form and usage of rhetoric. In giving oration — the end use of rhetoric — there are three general occasions for speech: political use in swaying governors and votes; forensic use in determining the existence and guilt of a crime; and ceremonial or performative uses, as when one speaks for the sake of religious enlightenment, personal or social enrichment, or to educate. In all three cases, the same basic principles apply to the use of rhetoric, with only slight variations based on environment.

Aristotle suggests that there are three principal ways in which one may be persuasive: "The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions — that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited" (Aristotle, 350 BCE, 1.2).

Understanding human character leads to understanding one's audience and determining what sort of argument will be most likely to sway them. From that point, the understanding of goodness and of emotion leads to arguments based on ethos and pathos, respectively. An ethos-based ethical argument appeals to that which is considered to be a prima facie good. For example, "Happiness, as being desirable in itself and sufficient by itself, and as being that for whose sake we choose many other things. Also justice, courage, temperance, magnanimity, magnificence, and all such qualities, as being excellences of the soul. Further, health, beauty, and the like, as being bodily excellences and productive of many other good things..." (Aristotle, 350 BCE, 1.6). An argument that appeals to these goods — and assumes that they will accrue from the application of its suggestions — will be inherently attractive to a human audience.

A pathos-based, or "pathetic," argument appeals to the emotional state of the audience, such as their rage, love, or sense of honor. Aristotle dedicates a good portion of the second part of his Rhetoric to how emotions may be provoked or quelled in an audience, including detailed instructions on how to make a passive crowd angry or an angry crowd passive. Aristotle teaches the orator how to use such knowledge as: "people who are afflicted by sickness or poverty or love or thirst or any other unsatisfied desires are prone to anger and easily roused: especially against those who slight their present distress... As to the frame of mind that makes people calm, it is plainly the opposite to that which makes them angry, as when they are amusing themselves or laughing or feasting... [or] when they have spent their anger on somebody else" (Aristotle, 350 BCE, 2.2–3).

A logical argument, on the other hand, is what Aristotle considers to be the best sort of argument, for it is based on proof — but it is not necessarily always the most effective. He suggests that audiences may not be prepared to understand a purely logical answer, and that such logic should be combined with other elements. Nonetheless, he spends a great deal of time describing the workings of logical arguments, both from examples and from syllogisms in which the first premises are guaranteed to be agreed with by the audience (perhaps because of their emotional or ethical qualities), and from which one may argue to a given conclusion. He refers to these syllogisms as enthymemes. "I call the enthymeme a rhetorical syllogism, and the example a rhetorical induction. Every one who effects persuasion through proof does in fact use either enthymemes or examples: there is no other way" (Aristotle, 350 BCE, 1.2).

Aristotle's Historical Effect on Rhetoric

Aristotle considers rhetoric to be a vital art, but also suggests that it is no substitute for education or morality. Certainly, rhetoric lends itself to the discovery of truth, since truth (Aristotle suggests) always makes more intuitive and intellectual sense compared to falsehood, and so equally talented rhetoricians will be more convincing when sharing the truth than when sharing falsehood. However, critics have pointed out that there is a "tension between Aristotle's epistemological optimism and his attempt to come to terms with rhetoric as a culturally and contextually specific social institution.... [as Aristotle says] scientific discourse is concerned with instruction, but in the case of [certain audiences] instruction is impossible; our proofs and arguments must rest on generally accepted principles... rhetoric [is] something separate from and inferior to scientific and ethical deliberation" (Haskins, 2004, pp. 13–14).

It may seem self-evident that arguments today would be based as much on logic and the greater good as on past authority and religious dogma. However, such an outcome was hardly assured in the Western world. For many decades after the fall of Rome to barbarian invaders and the fracturing of European culture into feudal pockets, there was very little political debate whatsoever, and most discussions were based entirely on force of arms or force of faith. The Dark Ages represented a sort of cataclysm of reason. Interestingly, this also seems to have proven Aristotle's point that "the world is eternal, but that the human race is periodically visited by cataclysms that destroy most of the accumulated knowledge. Each age, however, generates the same ideas about the world, and these ideas are preserved, if only partially, in the form of sayings, maxims, and myths..." (Haskins, 2004, p. 6). Aristotle saw himself as distilling past truths that had survived in stories, myths, and opinions. It is somewhat fitting, then, that after the destruction of Roman culture, centuries later Aristotle's works came to light once more and their preserved wisdom reintroduced rhetoric and rationality.

One could argue quite convincingly that the foundation of the modern approach to society — including the entirety of the modern political system — is fallout from the medieval rediscovery of Aristotle's work. During the Crusades, Europeans discovered Latin translations of Aristotle in various libraries throughout the Islamic world. Other Islamic science and culture was also highly admired, leaving the Christian nations in some turmoil regarding their own comparatively backward state. As Latin was the language of the church, and some ancient texts had long been discussed within the church (such as Plato's), Aristotle's work was quickly taken up and interrogated. His claims that the world was essentially rational and comprehensible created something of a conflict between the mystic and traditional elements of the church and those who delighted in applying reason to the word and world of God. Aristotle was called the Great Philosopher by many and the Godless Philosopher by others.

However, it does not appear to be true that science was birthed amid a grand struggle between Catholicism and Neo-Classicism. "The church is not the villain... both traditionalists and rationalists were churchmen, and 'the leading force for transformative change in Western thinking [was] the leadership of the Catholic Church'" (Miles, 2004). In fact, one of the leading Aristotelians of the day, Thomas Aquinas, not only revolutionized science, medicine, philosophy, and the practice of rhetoric — he was also sainted by the Church. Protestants such as Luther, however, and skeptics such as Hobbes, were less accommodating. Aristotle's scientific ideas were not the only revolutionary ones of the time; his opinions on the nature and shape of rhetoric also strongly influenced the development of the Enlightenment. "Aristotle's 'revolutionary new ideas from non-Western sources,' together with mass protest movements, created societies willing to 'engage each other in an intense, continuous dialog productive of new insights for both sides'" (Miles, 2004). Aristotle's work on rhetoric, among his other writings, created a model of the scholastic, political philosopher — a model that would serve as the mold for the fathers of Western egalitarian and republican theory. It would not, perhaps, even be inappropriate to consider Aristotle one of the founding grandfathers of modern democratic thought.

Conclusion

Aristotle's theory of rhetoric is perhaps the most important historical contributor to the history of debate in all vital categories, from politics to jurisprudence to religion and education. These theories have stood the test of time, spawning new fields of study and giving power to those which already existed. One may equally attribute to Aristotle the best and the most worrisome elements of modern rhetoric, which is itself a tribute to the importance of his theories and the fact that — above all else — they are highly functional.