Critical response Essay
Student name
2/6/2014
Rhetoric is the art of discourse. In some specific situations, it is an art to improve the capability of writers or speakers expression. It could help people to reach the purpose of inform, persuade, and motivate with the particular audiences. As a significant subject of formal study, rhetoric has played a crucial role in the Western tradition in the past many decades. There are two famous people—Plato and Aristotle that have made huge contributions on developing Rhetoric and delivering the concept of rhetoric from different perspectives. As comparing the view of Aristotle and Plato on rhetoric, it obvious that Aristotle builds on Plato’s views to some extent; …show more content…
nevertheless, the ethics and epistemological systems are two major factors that keep their perspectives of rhetoric away from one other. In a general speaking, Aristotle assumes that human’s nature instinct is rational and good. On the other hand, Plato believes that human is in need of instruction which sometimes, it refers deception.
From Plato perspective, his discussions of rhetoric and poetry are both extensive and influential. In his dialogues, both this quarrel and the related quarrel between philosophy and rhetoric amount to clashes between comprehensive world-views—those of philosophy on the one hand, and of poetry or rhetoric on the other. In his Gorgias, he argued that rhetoric cannot be an art, since it is not related to a definite subject, as real arts are defined by their specific subject.
As people take a deep insight on Aristotle’s Rhetoric, it has an enormous influence on develop of the art rhetoric.
According to his point of view, rhetoric is defined as the ability to see what is possible persuasive in very given case. Of course, the definition as such may not be able to apply to all circumstances. Rather, he is in the situation which is similar to physician. He would not be able to convince everyone if he finds out the available means of convincing. Aristotle joins Plato in criticizing contemporary manuals of rhetoric. In Aristotle’s view, people are most strongly convinced when they suppose that something has been proven, there is no need for the orator to confuse or distract the audience by the use of emotional appeals and so on. There is no unbridgeable gap between the commonly-held opinions and what is true. The core of Aristotle's Rhetoric is the doctrine that there are three technical means of …show more content…
persuasion.
Plato and Aristotle disagree profoundly regards to the value of art in human society.
Both philosophers are concerned with the artist’s ability to have significant impact on others. Both philosophers hold radically different notions of reality. As a result, Plato is antagonistic towards the function of rhetoric in his dialogue Gorgias and ambivalent. Similar to Aristotle, Plato is concerned with the pursuit of truth. Nevertheless, in Plato’s dialogues he views rhetoric as a way to misrepresent truth as he states in his criticism of the sophists.
On the other hand, Aristotle views Rhetoric as both a means to find truth on par with dialectics and an effective method of communication. Through the perspective from Aristotle, he is not as considered with rhetoric being a method of metaphor or a particular way of persuade through language tricks. As he relies on conviction to establish probability, he believes that truth is not just a matter of certainty. However, Plato insists on truth being a matter of certainty which could be disguised fairly easy by rhetorical
arts.
Truth and justice are the ultimately goals which both philosophers have their faith on. To be specific, Plato rhetoric requires addressing a right purpose of using in order to win the soul through discourse. In the contrast, trust may be attained by arguing both sides by Aristotle. For Plato, the goal is to instruct, rather than just to persuade. Persuasion without the end goal of discerning the difference between good and evil is problematic for Plato. On the other hand, Aristotle considers that not all audiences could be initiated and that some need to be convinced.
In addition, Plato places more importance on the process of logic than Aristotle who doesn't prohibit the use of sensation or character because humans are moved by more than just logic or reasoning. From different perspective, Plato believes that sensations or feelings can be distracting to the ultimate goal of truth and the goodness of the soul.
From my perspective, I prefer Aristotle’s Rhetorical theory. Aristotle’s rhetoric contains non-argumentative tools of persuasion as well. His art of rhetoric includes considerations about delivery and style and the parts of a speech. It is understandable that several interpreters found an inexplicable tension between the argumentative means of relevant rhetoric and non-argumentative tools that aim at what is outside the subject. In dealing with methods of traditional rhetoric, Aristotle obviously assumes that even methods that have traditionally been used instead of argumentation can be refined so that they support the aim of an argumentative style of rhetoric. Ultimately, their differing views of human nature and what it means to be good fundamentally influences their notions of rhetoric.
Work cited:
Aristotle's rhetoric. (2002, May 02). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/