Aristotle: Rhetoric

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

The article attempts to determine whether aristotle's conception of epideictic rhetoric included not only display of the orator's powers but also the functions of judgment and comprehension. It is argued that the term "theoria" or "observation" implies judgment and comprehension as well as perception as the function of epideictic, Therefore paralleling the faculty of practical understanding as described in the "nicomachean ethics". The result is a view of epideictic as an intellectual process through which the audience assesses the speaker's ability (...) to make judgments and, In turn, Receives critical insight into the praiseworthy or blamable object. (shrink)