Introduction to Aristotle: 1) Background and works other than THE RHETORIC; 2) Introduction to THE RHETORIC

PART ONE: BACKGROUND AND WORKS OTHER THAN THE RHETORIC

Aristotle was a prolific writer who's works on rhetoric must be viewed in light of his other books.

Biographically, we can categorize his life into three periods:

1st Athens: 366-347BC. Born ina Macedonian town, he went to Athens and studied under Plato at the Academy

Travels and Teaching: 347-335. Much travel was to avoid the tension brought about by Philip's victory over the Greeks. The story that he spent two years teaching Alexander the Great may be a legend. We think we know that he did not write the rhetorical work which had long been attributed to him from that period (RHETORICA AD ALEXANDRUM) although we suspect there is still a "lost" work about rhetoric.

2nd Athens: returns to Athens, sets up the Lyceum (the "peripatetic" school="covered walk").

Complete works of Aristotle

The work on which we will concentrate, the RHETORIC, is probably a collection of materials from the two periods in Athens such that an accurate/singular date of authorship is not possible.

Let's examine the range of his work so as to fit the RHETORIC in its proper place and contextualize it with topics covered in other books.

ORGANON

First, there is a series of works on Logic, collectively known as the ORGANON. The subject matter of these works are techniques and principles of proof (obviously, an issue with many relations to the making of persuasive speech--rhetoric).

CATEGORIES:

Discussion of simple, uncombined headings and categories. For example, quantity, relation, quality, opposites, substance, place, time, position, state, action, affection. These categories will later re-appear as "common places" through which issues may be examined and in which arguments may be found.

ON INTERPRETATION:

Examines the relations between pairs of terms combined in propositions. For example, what happens to place when quantity increases or decreases?

PRIOR ANALYTICS:

Examines the relations in 3 term arguments. Introduces the syllogism

Syllogism: a three part argument consisting of a major premise (which is a universally held truth/fact), a minor premise (a specific instance which is generally held to be true/fact), and a conclusion which "follows" in a determined way.

all men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Socrates is mortal

The syllogism is important as a "logical" form and as the basis for its rhetorical counterpart, the enthymeme.

POSTERIOR ANALYTICS:

Examines the operation of syllogisms which are based on first principles (scientific definitions). Examines the role of syllogisms in scientific demonstration.

TOPICS:

Examines the operation of syllogisms which are based on opinions. These are the types of syllogisms which might result from, say, dialectic or philosophy. Neither scientific demonstration nor rhetoric; rather, that which we (and Plato) might refer to as argument based on right knowledge--"opinion" may well be a misleading translation/term here.

ON SOPHISTICAL REFUTATION:

About how one can refute--argue against--syllogisms based on opinion (knowledge).

The ORGANON, taken together, presents much of that which Aristotle wrote and taught about how to make argument(s). These works were written from the "scientific" point of view and apply to cases in which knowledgeable people discuss premises that are either fully accepted are "known" to be the case. This is the kind of argument which philosophers have long referred to as "logic." Aristotle uses this logical system as a touchstone,comparison, and counterpart to and in his RHETORIC.

There are a number of books in the natural sciences which we will not here detail.

Other important works, each with some relation to THE RHETORIC

METAPHYSICS

in which Aristotle presented his theory of first principles and causes (an ancient scientist's search for an operating mechanism for the universe).

ETHICS

in which Aristotle examines the capacities and potentials of men conditioned by the nature of good and guided by virtue. This work lays the groundwork for comments which Aristotle will include in the RHETORIC about the variety in types of people (their nature) and in discussions about right action.

POLITICS

in which Aristotle discusses human action as communal life-- the end product of being natural as presented in the ETHICS. Virtue is found in systems which provide the greatest good for the largest number of people (utilitarianism).

POETICS

presents a theory of tragedy (comedy) and a very careful examination of emotions.

PART TWO: INTRODUCTION TO THE RHETORIC

The RHETORIC is still held, by many (though not all) as perhaps the greatest extant treatment of the subject. There are, however, some on-going controversies over the work.

1. The fragmentary nature of our text leaves open questions as to:

a. the date of authorship

b. the order of presentation and relative emphasis on aspects

c. possibility of many missing parts

d. as mentioned, the relationship of this text to some other full work, now missing, on the rest of the topic.

Take, for example, the ordering issue. There is a HUGE difference between dividing proofs into the artistic and the non-artistic, then dividing artistic proofs into ethos, pathos, and logical argument (with enthymeme and example under logical argument)--this is the "normative/historical" reading) OR, with Grimaldi, dividing proof into two types--enthymeme and example, then distributing ethos, pathos, and logical argument inside those. The traditional view presents rhetoric as a form which is used with ignorant masses who cannot understand logic and science; Gramaldi's treatment finds rhetoric as a procedure which appeals to the "whole/entire" person within us all.

Additionally, our version of the texts presents some contradictions and places which are less than clear, especially about key concepts such as commonplaces and the definition and use of the term enthymeme.

2. There is a debate as to who Aristotle's RHETORIC is good for. This is similar to debates about the Bible: for whom is the text, as we have it, most appropriate-- the early Christians for whom it was written or for contemporary audiences who adapt the wisdom therein?

Obviously, there are many ways in which the communicative approaches are dated and apply more to lives in 300BC Athens than to life today. There may, however, be other ways in which the work is as applicable today as anything we know about communication.

THE RHETORIC

Remember that the RHETORIC is both an original formulation, by Aristotle, of the art AND is a compilation of practices and teachings contemporaneous with its writing. It is not mere compilation, but it is influenced by the work of other rhetoricians in the classic period. Yet, Aristotle's treatment of these materials is special, as are his contributions.

SOME SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS (we'll cover six)

1. FOUR REASONS THAT RHETORIC IS USEFUL

To uphold the truth

To teach

To analyze issues thoroughly, both sides (and more)

To defend oneself (and the right)

Book one speaks strongly against radical Platonic idealism by noting that we do not live in the perfect world which Plato sought to establish (no one has ever fully implemented his social program); therefore there are many good uses for rhetoric. Aristotle re-establishes the validity of an "amoral" rhetoric which can be put to good uses. There is a moral sense here as well: that the right/truth requires protection as much as does the perpetration of wrongs. The bad guys will use rhetoric...why must the good guys be helpless? There is a political sense here too: right thinking leaders, those with the good of the most in mind, must be able to take effective leadership action (and must do so). There is an educational sense here: not everyone is an expert; there will always be lay-people and they must be instructed. The layman cannot converse in the lingua-franca of the elite expert. Those experts must not only talk amongst themselves/each other,they must instruct those who lack the knowledge. There is a rhetorical aspect to all instruction.

Note how the system relies on those works which Aristotle had already provided. Further, note that Aristotle's conception of rhetoric makes it a part of every human endeavor, except (perhaps) those aspects of scientific discussion which are so well known as to be accepted virtually without question.

2. DEFINITION OF RHETORIC: THE ART OF DISCOVERING IN ANY GIVEN CASE WHAT ARE THE MEANS OF PERSUASION. This is an incredibly rich perspective.

Rhetoric is ARTISTIC. It is organized according to principles, flexible to personal interpretation, expressive, with aesthetic considerations, and disposed toward utility (effectiveness) [form and function are both at issue]. Rhetoric is about DISCOVERY: rhetoric is not merely the words, or their performance. Rather, the intellectual and philosophical development of that which should be said and how to say it best. Rhetoric is about effective human thought in the realm of communication interests. Rhetoric IS PARTICULAR TO THE GIVEN CASE.--at its best it is not canned or pre-fabed. It is individualized to specific cases. Rhetoric is about PERSUASION. Aristotle's rhetoric is concerned with gaining audience assent. It is audience centered.

3. FORMS OF ARTISTIC PROOF

Regardless of how we organize these aspects, Aristotle's discussion of artistic proofs provides us with the proper materials for effective rhetorical action. ETHOS is presented as the hearer's perception of the speaker BASED ON THE SPEECH. Our contemporary sense of credibility is overly tied to extrinsic factors attached to the speaker prior to the event. Aristotle shows us the importance of "intrinsic" credibility...the power that certain speakers have to mobilize their positive resources during the communication event in which they are participating. This aspect also reminds us that credibility is fleeting . .. coming in with it does not guarantee that one will leave with it still in effect. Yet, ethos is developed throughout a career; while it must be granted by each audience each time, they can be encouraged/discouraged by the virtue of the speaker (you are the way you are because you speak the way you speak, as Dominic LaRusso reminds us the ancients used to say). What do the speakers develop which actuates ethos? Intelligence: based on the soundness of the claims made. Integrity: based on apparent truthfulness of the claims. Good will: based on the perception that the speaker has the best interests of the listeners in mind.

PATHOS:
Aristotle provides a very thorough analysis of the types of emotions (as seen via their bi-polar pairs), the types of people who feel them (especially as conditioned by the lifespan),the state of mind which is present in the audience member, the circumstances for or against the use of emotional appeals.

LOGICAL ARGUMENT:
(sometimes poorly translated as logos) presentation of the enthymeme, common places, lines of argument, maxim, signs, and examples.

ENTHYMEME:
a concept which has suffered from a variety of interpretations, much to do with the faulty text which gives us inconsistent and somewhat contradictory examples. Also--its relation to the syllogism (if which it is the rhetorical form) further complicates the issue as illustrated via Aristotle's examples here and in other works. Four ways to look at the enthymeme/to define it

a. The rhetorical syllogism.
In other words, it is the counterpart of the dialectical syllogism. Science deals with demonstration so joins accepted truths to form conclusions (syllogisms); rhetoric deals with opinion (rather than with certainty) so is based on probabilities (and reasons with them).

b. A truncated syllogism
(at least) one of the three parts is left unstated. Generally, the unstated part is either a basic assumption (premise) which the audience is presumed to already hold, or a piece of specific information the audience is assumed to know, or a conclusion which we can assume the audience can reach for themselves.

c.A call to audience participation in the argument
Since self-persuasion is the best kind and since the truncation depends on audiences filling in the missing parts, the enthymeme involves the audience in the argument with positive effect. Further, the filling in is generally over cultural held notions, so the form moves the audience toward (subliminal) joining.

d. A relief from detail
The truncation allows the speaker to avoid unneeded and distracting repetition and detail. this helps break up chains of syllogisms . . . long lists of items (including argument after argument after argument) are hard to follow.

4. USE OF TOPOI AND LINES OF ARGUMENT AS INVENTIONAL DEVICES

Common topics (possible, impossible, past fact, future fact size)

Special topics (of the given case; e.g., branches of the federal government)

Lines of argument (28 listed, with 9 which are bogus/sham)

5. THREE TYPES OF DISCOURSE, AUDIENCES, TIMES, ENDS, MEANS

Aristotle categorizes speaking situations and their details.

types. . . . audience. . . . times. . . . ends. . . . means

forensic. . . . decision maker past fact . justice. . . accusation/defense

deliberative decision maker future fact adv/disad persuasion/dissuasion

epideictic. . . spectator. . . . present . . noble/shame praise/blame

6. IMPORTANCE OF AUDIENCE ANALYSIS

as represented in extensive coverage of factors for ethos and pathos. The first ancient psychology of communication (though Plato and others had begun this trend).

THE RHETORIC in the tradition

The RHETORIC does not discuss the five canons in the way that Clark attributes to the classical conception of rhetoric. We think that Aristotle wrote another book in which he may have covered memory, delivery and organization. The present book is especially strong in Invention and Style, with some mention, in book three, of organization. The manuscript was influential in the ancient world, but was lost in the first at the libraries of Rome and Alexandria. Although it was preserved by ancient Arabian peoples, it was not an issue in the European rhetorical tradition until after its re-discovery (in the West) toward the end of the Italian Renaissance period. Generally speaking, the book does not make particularly good reading as it is somewhat typically Aristotelian: it categorizes and details much.

back to lecture note index