The Art of Persuasion in it’s Earliest Form

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who left an impact on almost everything regarding the knowledge of mankind. Aristotle’s writings have remained everlasting through time, despite the periods of darkness that he suffered due to the likes and beliefs of society. Although known world wide, Aristotle was born in 384 B.C to Stagira, a town in northern Greece. For 20 years, Aristotle studied under Plate and throughout his education he often criticised the teachings of Plato, but developed a respect as well. After his education, Arsitotle was summoned to tutor who later became Alexander the Great.

After his death in 322 BC, Aristotle’s compilations of work were forgotten for sometime. However, they later were revived in 30 BC by Andronicus of Rhodes, and are now taught, analyzd and praised today.

One work specifically, Aristotle’s Rhetoric, deals with the art of persuasion. From the 4th century BC, in this composition Aristotle works on defining the term “rhetoric” and demonstrating how it’s teachings and methods are the most important to any aspect of persuasion. This composition is divided into three books, and then into chapters. In chapter one, Aristotle defines rhetoric and explains how it is the “counterpart of Dialectic” (Honeycutt). In this chapter, Aristotle emphasizes that appeals to emotion in the art of persuasion often adulterate one’s judgement.

In chapter two, Aristotle presents the concrete definition which states that “rhetoric is viewed as the ability in any particular case to see the available means of persuasion” in any situation (Honecutt). In this chapter, Aristotle also introduces components of persuasion still used today: ethos, pathosm and logos, the appeals to emotion, as well as paradigms and syllogisms.

Furthermore, in chapter 3, Aristotle introduces the three types of rhetoric: deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. Aristotle also mentions the “ends” or conclusions that each orator wishes to reach with their persuasion.

In book two of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he focuses on the emotional appeal in one’s argument. In chapter one, he presents the concept that the judgement of man as well as the opinion are often altered due to emotions. He explains that in persuasion, one can portray certain emotions in the act of seeking a cetain effect. Chapter two further investigates this theory and explore emotions that can be applied to a rhetorical speaker.

Overall, Aristotle’s explanation and in depth evaluation of rhetoric is convincing and powerful, as it is still used today. In fact, it has become such a noteable source that it is regarded to more currently as the history of rhetoric, and not just a philosophical work. Although somewhat difficult to fully understand and see the entirity of its power just through Aristotle’s writing, a dialogue refferred to as Phaedrus exposes its methods a bit more.

Phaedrus was written by Plate in 370 BC. It tells the story of a conversation Socrates has with his friend Phaedrus while walking just outside of Athens. Phaedrus had just hear a speech on love by Lysias, and shares it with Socrates. Socrates does not find the speech impressive and states that he can provide a better speech on the subject. In the end, the two men discuss the art of rhetoric.

I found this dialogue amusing to read and easy to understand. It demonstrated Aristotle’s idea of rhetoric in a more personable way and presents it in a different light.

Passages such as the following provide an explanation on why it is important to appeal to emotions in the art of persuasion.

“The conclusion: A man must be able to know and define and denote the subjects of which he is speaking, and to discern the natures of those whom he is addressing. Until a man knows the truth of the several particulars of which he is writing or speaking, and is able to define them as they are, and having defined them again to divide them until they can be no longer divided, and until in like manner he is able to discern the nature of the soul, and discover the different modes of discourse which are adapted to different natures, and to arrange and dispose them in such a way that the simple form of speech may be addressed to the simpler nature, and the complex and composite to the more complex nature—until he has accomplished all this, he will be unable to handle arguments according to rules of art, as far as their nature allows them to be subjected to art, either for the purpose of teaching or persuading. Such is the view which is implied in the whole preceding argument” (Socrates).

Furthermore, early on the dialogue, Socrates provides a definition or rhetoric that explains what it can do is implemented correctly:

“The rhetorician can produce any impression that he pleases, in any place or upon any occasion. Is not rhetoric, taken generally, a universal art of enchanting the mind by arguments; which is practiced not only in courts and public assemblies, but in private houses also, having to do with all matters, great as well as small, good and bad alike, and is in all equally right, and equally to be esteemed—that is what you have heard?” (Socrates)

In all honesty, I never put much thought into the art of persuasion, or the concept of rhetoric. It was always something presented in English classes, and a few Philosophy classes, but never something that I fully grasped the concept of. Using it was never an issue, but after going through these readings I feel that I will be able to apply rhetoric in a more powerful method because it is better understood. It seems that Phaedrus is the perfect comprehension companion to Aristotle’s Rhetoric because it encompasses all of it’s aspects in a story like manner, making it easier to understand through example.

In conclusion, it is safe to assume that rhetoric, and the art of persuasion are very important. Whether writing about it in a paper, using it in argument, or reading about its uses in argument, understanding it and being able to detect it are beneficial in defending oneself in any act of persuasion or argument.