All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire
Why does Aristotle still prove relevant? Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric has stood the test of time, still holding true to this day. Aristotle has endured because he had a insightful understanding of the way the human mind perceives the world. His definition of rhetoric addresses both the logical tendencies of rhetoric as well as our inclination to follow instincts. Using both of these aspects of the human mind, Aristotle develops his argument by centering the basis of rhetoric on the concept of persuasion.
It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to be demonstrated…The true and the approximately true are apprehended by the same faculty; it may also be noted that men have a sufficient natural instinct for what is true, and usually do arrive at the truth.
According to Aristotle, the very core of rhetoric is persuasion. Everything else surrounding the art of rhetoric is “merely accessory”. Aristotle had a firm belief in the power of demonstration, maintaining that it was a necessary tool in order to master the art of rhetoric. We are inclined to accept the truth if we can see it with our eyes. The power of demonstration is crucial to our understanding of persuasion.
Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated. The orator’s demonstration is an enthymeme, and this is, in general, the most effective of the modes of persuasion. It follows plainly, therefore, that he who is best able to see how and from what elements a syllogism is produced will also be best skilled in the enthymeme.
It is easy to see the relevance of Aristotle’s argument in today’s media. If you turn on any news channel, you will not get a straight account of the news. Bias is everywhere. Anchors and journalists are attempting to persuade their audiences into believing their own perspective. Looking at our own political system, our presidential candidates prove their persuasive abilities during the debate and usually are rewarded for their skill in rhetoric with a victory. While technologies may have changed since Aristotle’s time, our methods of effective rhetoric haven’t. Persuasion is still at the center of the art of rhetoric.
I like the way you structured this post as it flows, is engaging, integrates quotes effectively, and focuses on a specific aspect of the reading. But at some point you need to introduce (and link to) the reading. You should also at least reference Plato, such as by making a brief comparison to his understanding of persuasion.