Aristotle: Rhetoric

This book explores the significance of rhetoric from the perspective of its complex relationship with philosophy. It demonstrates how this relationship gives expression to a basic tension at the core of politics: that between the contingency of its happening and the transcendence toward which it strives. The first part of the study proposes a reassessment of the ancient quarrel between philosophy and rhetoric, as it was discussed by Plato, Aristotle, and above all Cicero and Quintilian, who ambitiously attempted to bring (...) them together creating an ideal that is at the roots of the humanist tradition. It then moves to twentieth-century political theory and shows how the questions that emerge from that quarrel still strongly resonate in the works of key thinkers such as H. Arendt, L. Strauss, and R. Rorty. The volume thus offers an original contribution that locates itself at the intersection of politics, rhetoric, and philosophy. (shrink)

This paper has three major aims. The first is to defend the hypothesis that Aristotle’s lost work Protrepticus was a dialogue. The second is to explore the genres of ancient apotreptics, speeches that argue against doing philosophy and show the need for protreptic responses; our exploration is guided by Aristotle’s own analysis of apotreptics as well as protreptics in his Rhetorica. The third aim is to restore to the evidence base of Aristotle’s Protrepticus an apotreptic speech that argues against doing (...) Academic philosophy, evidence that was incorrectly excluded by Ingemar Düring in 1961. (shrink)

The purpose of the paper is to discuss Aristotle’s account of homonymy. The major thesis advocated here is that Aristotle considers both entities and words to be homonymous, depending on the object of his criticism. Thus, when he takes issue with Plato, he tends to view homonymy more ontologically, upon which it is entities that become homonymous. When, on the other hand, he gainsays the exegetes or the sophists, he is inclined to perceive homonymy more semantically, upon which it is (...) words that become homonymous. Subsequently, this article shows that Aristotle values homonymy negatively in dialectical discussions, but positively in rhetorical and poetic arts. Finally, the present paper demonstrates that Aristotle regards systematic homonymy as a very useful theoretical tool that makes it possible to critically examine the basic terminological assumptions of any philosophical inquiry. (shrink)

This paper critically assesses the possibility of moral enhancement with ambient intelligence technologies and artificial intelligence presented in Savulescu and Maslen (2015). The main problem with their proposal is that it is not robust enough to play a normative role in users’ behavior. A more promising approach, and the one presented in the paper, relies on an artifi-cial moral reasoning engine, which is designed to present its users with moral arguments grounded in first-order normative theories, such as Kantianism or utilitarianism, (...) that reason-responsive people can be persuaded by. This proposal can play a normative role and it is also a more promising avenue towards moral enhancement. It is more promising because such a system can be designed to take advantage of the sometimes undue trust that people put in automated technologies. We could therefore expect a well-designed moral reasoner system to be able to persuade people that may not be persuaded by similar arguments from other people. So, all things considered, there is hope in artificial intelli-gence for moral enhancement, but not in artificial intelligence that relies solely on ambient intelligence technologies. (shrink)

The ways in which the Aristotelian sciences are related to each other has been discussed in the literature, with some focus on the subalternate sciences. While it is acknowledged that Aristotle, and Plato as well, was concerned as well with how the arts were related to one another, less attention has been paid to Aristotle's views on relationships among the arts. In this paper, I argue that Aristotle's account of the subalternate sciences helps shed light on how Aristotle saw the (...) art of rhetoric relating to dialectic and politics. Initial motivation for comparing rhetoric with the subalternate sciences is Aristotle's use of the language of boundary transgression, germane to the Posterior Analytics, when discussing rhetoric’s boundaries, as well as the language of "over" and "under" found in APo. First, I discuss three passages in Rhetoric Book I and argue that Garver's (1988) account cannot be correct. Second, I look to the subalternate sciences, especially focusing on optics and the distinction between "unqualified" optics and mathematical optics. Third, I discuss rhetoric's dependence on both dialectic and politics. (shrink)

The article tackles the relationship between genius and analogy in Descartes’s early writings and the programmatic writings of the Encyclopédie. For Descartes, ingenious analogies between phenomena that are not obviously related belong more properly to poetic truth discourse, whereas philosophy must be content with the more easily observable and methodical mechanistic comparisons. In the encyclopedic ordering of Diderot and d’Alembert, on the other hand, ingenious analogies are not specific to any particular field of knowledge, since genius consists precisely in connecting (...) even the most remote branches of the whole tree of knowledge. I argue that the theoretical core of both approaches can be traced back to Aristotle’s theory of metaphor insofar as it relies on the analogy of genera rather than species. (shrink)

This is a book on rhetorics as a public communication method, which refers to the ideas of the main theoretician of rhetorics, i.e. Aristotle, Marcus Tillius Cicero, Hugh Blair, Frances Yates, and Gilbert Austin.

Review of a recent monograph arguing that an analysis of the works of Isocrates is necessary to get a clear view of mid-fourth-century B.C. philosophy, including Plato and Aristotle.

ἔστω δὴ ἡ ῥητορικὴ δύναμις περὶ ἕκαστον τοῦ θεωρῆσαι τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον πιθανόν.(Estō dē hē rhētorikē dunamis peri hekaston tou theōrēsai to endekhomenon pithanon.)Let us define rhetoric to be "A faculty of considering all the possible means of persuasion on every subject."Rhetoric then may be defined as the faculty of discovering the possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever.Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.Let rhetoric be [defined (...) as] an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion.The question of rhetoric's potential continues to provoke. What appears in Aristotle's attempt to name .. (shrink)

The term dunamis, by which Aristotle defines rhetoric in the first chapter of The Art of Rhetoric, is a "power" term, as its various meanings in Aristotle's corpus—from vernacular ones like "political influence" to strictly philosophical ones like "potentiality"—attest.1 In the Rhetoric, however, dunamis is usually translated as "ability" or "faculty," a designation that, compared to other terms that describe persuasion in ancient Greek poetics and rhetoric (such as "bia" ["force"] or "eros" ["seduction"]), marks rhetoric as a neutral human capacity (...) rather than the use of language entangled in the vagaries of violence and desire.2 John Kirby calls Aristotle's definition "one of the boldest moves in the history of .. (shrink)

While the loss of the second book of the Poetics has deprived us of Aristotle’s most extensive account of laughter and comedy, his discussion of eutrapelia as a virtue in his ethical works and in the Rhetoric points toward the importance of humor for his ethical and political thought. This article offers a reconstruction of Aristotle’s account of wittiness and attempts to explain how the virtue of wittiness would animate the everyday interactions of ordinary citizens. Placing Aristotle’s account of wittiness (...) in dialogue with recent work within the ethical turn in contemporary political theory can help articulate what a late-modern ethos of democratic laughter might look like. (shrink)

Negotiation research primarily focuses on negotiators? interests in order to understand negotiation and offer advice about the prospective outcome. Win-win outcomes, i.e., outcomes that serve the interests of all negotiating parties, have been established and promoted as the ultimate goal for any negotiation situation. We offer a perspective that draws on Aristotle's philosophical program and discuss how the outcome is not defined by the parties? interests, but by the intersubjective validity of claims, which can essentially be treated as representative of (...) the ?truth.? (shrink)

Aristotle’s phronimos is a model of the virtues: he fuses sound practical reasoning with well formed desires. Among the skills of practical reasoning are those of finding the right words and arguments in the process of deliberation. As Aristotle puts it, virtue involves doing the right thing at the right time and for the right reason. Speaking well, saying the right thing in the right way is not limited to public oratory: it pervades practical life. Aristotle’s phronimos must acquire the (...) habits that are engaged in rhetorical persuasion. (shrink)

L'article analyse Vinfluence des émotions et de la rhétorique dans le raisonnement pratique. Suivant Aristote, on souligne ici le rôle essentiel des émotions dans les décisions et les actions, mais il est extrêmement ambivalent. La première partie (I.) présente la relation problématique entre la philosophie et le raisonnement rationnel d'une part et la rhétorique et les émotions de Vautre. Ensuite on analysera les arguments d'Aristote dans sa Rhétorique contre (II) et pour (III.) l'excitation des émotions dans les discours politiques. La (...) dernière partie (IV.) suggère deux éléments de discussion: comment et pourquoi la conception aristotélicienne des émotions pourrait-elle apporter une contribution dans le débat contemporain sur les émotions ? Car, d'une part, celui-ci est marqué par l'approche cognitiviste qui néglige la dimension sociale des émotions.D'autre part, la thèse aristotélicienne remet en question notre conception J'animai rationale et engage une nouvelle appréciation de la composante émotionnelle de la nature humaine. The paper investigates the impact of emotion and rhetoric for practical reasoning. With regard to Aristotle's theory of emotion, it is argued for the thesis that the role of emotion is essential for acting and decision making, but highly ambivalent in character. The first part (I.) presents the thesis and discuss the problematic relationship between philosophy and rational reasoning on the one side and rhetoric and emotional arousal on the other. The next two parts analyse Aristotle's arguments presented in his Rhetoric against (II.) and for (III.) arousal of emotions in political speech. The last part (IV.) outlines two arguments : how and why the Aristotelian account of emotion can add to contemporary philosophical discussion of emotions ? First, as the current debate on emotion is strongly shaped by a cognitivistic approach focusing on the cognitive requisites of emotion, the Aristotelian theory brings back in the political and social dimension of emotion, which has been neglected in current research. Second, the Aristotelian account of emotion challenges our self-conception as animal rationale and requires a reevaluation and recognition of the emotional components of human nature. (shrink)

In this article, a preliminary investigation will be conducted in order to try to discover whether or not Aristotle’s the Art of Rhetoric can have any relevance as a handbook for the rhetoricians of the twenty-first century and in particular for advertising designers. First, the background against which this question is posed will be set out. Second, the chosen methodology will be explained. Thereafter, some qualitative data will be presented and discussed. Finally, some conclusions will be drawn suggesting that The (...) Art of Rhetoric may be just as relevant and influential today for advertising professionals as it was for the lawyers and politicians of classical times. (shrink)

According to Aristotle, character (êthos) and emotion (pathos) are constitutive features of the process of phronetic practical deliberation: in order to render a determinate action-specific judgement, practical reasoning cannot be simply reduced to logical demonstration (apodeixis). This can be seen by uncovering an important structural parallel between the virtue of phronêsis and the art of rhetoric. This structural parallel helps to show how Aristotle's account of practical reason and deliberation, which constructively incorporates the emotions, illuminates key issues in contemporary democratic (...) theory concerning deliberation at the political level. (shrink)

Which properties are characteristic of the enthymeme in Aristotle's Rhetoric? There is no consensus on this point. The present discussion centres on three properties. 1. Is there always an implicit premise? (Answer: Above all, a pragmatic level and a logical level must be distinguished.) 2. Do the premises consist by definition of probabilities and signs? (Answer: No.). 3. Are all enthymemes reducible to a syllogistic form? (Answer: The literature pertaining to this question is dominated by a false dilemma: an enthymeme (...) does not have either a topical or a syllogistic structure). In general, Aristotle's approach to the enthymeme in the Rhetoric appears to shift from argumentation theory to logic. (shrink)

The altruistic emotions of pity and compassion are discussed in the context of Aristotle's treatment of the former in the Rhetoric, and Nussbaum's reconstruction of that treatment in a recent account of the latter. Aristotle's account of pity does not represent it as a virtue, the context of the Rhetoric rather rendering his account one of a peculiarly self-centred emotion. Nussbaum's reconstruction builds on the cognitive ingredients of Aristotle's account, and attempts to place the emotion of compassion more squarely in (...) the moral sphere. It is argued that Nussbaum's reconstruction nevertheless falls short of capturing the altruism which is central to the virtue of compassion, and which therefore explains its role as a ‘basic social emotion’. (shrink)

A spate of recent works illustrates the continuing interest of scholars in Aristotelian rhetoric. The most significant of these is Eugene Garver's Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character. Two other works contain essays that focus on this text of Aristotle: Aristotle's Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays, and Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric. The second of these volumes includes several abbreviated or redressed versions of articles contained in the first. A third collection, Peripatetic Rhetoric After Aristotle, considers the fate of Aristotelian rhetoric in later (...) centuries. (shrink)

In contemporary American scholarship, interpretation of Aristotle'sRhetoric has become the locus of sustained and sharp controversy. Differing views of theRhetoric and its significance have become tokens in a more general dispute about what rhetoric is or ought to be. This essay examines three central issues that have emerged in this larger arena of controversy: the relationship between Aristotelian and Platonic conceptions of rhetoric, the relationships among rhetoric, ethics, and epistemology in Aristotle, and the placement of rhetoric within Aristotle's system of (...) arts and sciences. (shrink)

IN PREPARING A HANDBOOK ON RHETORIC, Aristotle proceeds as he does for a discussion of any craft or practice. After distinguishing it from other closely related arts, he defines its proper aim: that of finding the means that can be used to persuade an audience of any subject whatever. Since the most effective exercise of any craft or faculty is conceptually connected to its fulfilling its norm-defined aims, his counsel is directed to guiding the master craftsman who is responsive to (...) the larger issues that surround the exercise of his skill--a rhetorician speaking about important matters to those authorized to affect them. Aristotle's advice to the rhetorician imports the results of his philosophic investigations: the Rhetoric presupposes and is implicitly informed by Aristotle's logical works, by his philosophy of mind, and his theory of action; it is also strongly conjoined with his political and ethical theory. But while the rhetorician relies on these theories, he is not himself a philosopher, logician, statesman, or moralist. (shrink)

The first part of this paper contends that argumentation is central and essential to Aristotle's Rhetoric, and recounts a number of arguments in support of that view, particularly the recognition that deliberative rhetoric or the rhetoric of counsel is the primary concern of Aristotle's work. The second part of the paper reviews the work that follows in this present volume to show that the other writers' views fit in perfectly with this thesis.

A study on the nature of persuasive discourse in St.Augustine's philosophy, aiming at showing that in Augustine's thought an argumentation finalized to be effective must be truth-oriented. In this sense (dating back to Aristotle) a true persuasion, or to say better rhetoric, is completely different from sophistic, which is finalized to persuade without any search for truth.

Aristotle's Rhetoric presents a number of problems for interpreters. It contains criticisms of sophists, yet seems to teach sophistical techniques of persuasion. It is unclear to some readers whether the book is an elaboration of a rational discourse or not. And its diversity of material has led some to view it as a collection of texts rather than as a unified book. In his commentary Arnhart argues that Aristotle's Rhetoric is a coherent account of public speech as a kind of (...) rational discourse less rigorous than scientific demonstration but more rational than sophistry. (shrink)