ENGL 6166: Rhetorical Theory » January 27th: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Book 1

January 27th: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Book 1

Plan for the Evening

  • Canvas Prompts are due on Fridays and there are no make ups
  • Leading class discussion schedule is up…any more
  • Encomium of Helen (if needed)
  • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric (Available here)

Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 1

Aristotle Highlights

A way I describe Aristotle is “the great organizer.” He was particular 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):

  • 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
  • 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 kinds of persuasion (Aristotle 1.2.4, Kennedy p. 38; Part 2, para. 3 Online)
  • 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)

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)
    • “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 probablities (1.2.14, Kennedy p. 42; Part 2, para. 9 Online) and 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 he…or she meant pedagogical and scholarly disposition) was sociological. After trying to explain that all disciplines have a rhetoric, 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 “commnplaces”

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) 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.

2) 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?

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.