Sarah Kelzer Rhetoric and Civic Culture 2/20/2014 Professor Fritch Exam 1: Essays Question #1: Is rhetoric an art?

Plato and Aristotle took differing positions on this seemingly simple question. Who, if either, is correct? Mastering a skill is something that has been both prized and envied throughout the centuries. Skills such as writing, painting, or even grasping the game of basketball have been tried and attempted with only the best rising to the top. It is generally thought that one must study, practice and critique over and over again to become great and to be an artist in their area of expertise. So why should speaking in a rhetorical language be any less of a skill to master. Whether rhetoric can be classified among the common forms of art we think of today has been debated by great men, including Plato and Aristotle. Each philosopher takes a different stand on the subject yet both make good points. The question becomes, is rhetoric an art? And if so, to be a true rhetorician, do you have to be a rhetorical artist? The argument of whether or not rhetoric is an art can be traced back all the way to 380 BC when Plato wrote the Socratic dialogue Gorgias. In the conversation, Socrates is on a quest to seek the true definition of rhetoric. One of his conversation partners, Pollus, explains the differences between the arts and the knacks. Pollus states that medicine and gymnastics are a part of the arts because they are good for you and offer an account of success, such as in political and legal life. Knacks on the other hand are cosmetics and cookery; they are pleasant but are not what is best for the individual. Socrates explains in detail to Polus that he believes rhetoric is not actually an art but a knack because it produces pleasure. Therefore, Platos rendition of
1

SocractesSocrates, his teacher, shows that Plato believed rhetoric had the option of being nothing more than what the listener wanted to hear, and thus, a knack or flattery. Plato believed that art should be what you need to hear. It is the good for you that is grounded in truth and thus affecting your soul. In essence, Plato believed that rhetoric had the capability of being both an art and a flattery, depending on the speaker. But Plato was more known for Socrates argument that rhetoric is flattery, not an art, and that it can be used in pure self-interest. He may have even been thinking of Socrates when Socrates said that there is indeed a possibility of the art of rhetoric, but it lies with Socrates. Plato defined rhetoric as the art of influencing the soul through words. This could take place in law, assembly or even private gatherings. Plato gave four pieces of criteria that must be present to be art. Plato said that the first criteria of art was to know truth. The ultimate truth resides in the forms, which are the ideals that exist in the heavens. In our human form on Earth, we have recollections of that truth is because our bodies catch glimpses of the perfect forms we saw in heaven before we were born. Basically, Plato says that our truth is the triggering of our memories. The second criteria involved the knowledge of the soul. This means that we must know our audience. Not tuning your speech to fit your audiences years could leave your point embarrassingly mute. The next criteria Plato outlined is that the speaker must have knowledge of oratory principles that give an account of own success. To gain this knowledge, one must study and prepare, similar to how a painter studies different brush strokes and practices how much color to use to combine with another to create a whole new color. The fourth and final criteria stated is to have high moral purpose. Remember, only a flattery tells what you want to hear, but the arts go beyond that and tell what you want to hear. It takes a highly moral person to do what is right instead of what is the easiest.
Comment [JEF1]: This is in Phaedrus. Is this different from the definition Plato provides in Gorgias? It would be good to note that difference if there is a difference. (Hint: there is.)

Years later, the student had become the teacher and had gained students of his own. Platos student, Aristotle, was a philosopher who broke away from the well beaten path and devised a school of his own, called Lyceum. Aristotles school was much more practical and pragmatic and the differences did not stop there. Aristotle formed a new definition of rhetoric that differed from Platos and said that who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. Aristotle explained rhetoric as not being a function of any other art. Aristotles criteria of rhetoric consisted of having broad context, is an art in of itself, is persuasion based, and leads to discovery and new topics. Furthermore, rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectic. While Aristotle agrees that rhetoric and dialectic are branches of philosophy that focus on probability, J.H. Freese, author of the translated works of Aristotle, says that Aristotle states that dialectic is a means for skilled audiences to test probable knowledge in order to learn. Conversely, rhetoric is a means for persuading a general audience using probable knowledge to resolve practical issues, (1926). Based off of Platos explanation of art, one of the reasons that rhetoric meets the criteria of being an art is because it requires the speaker to know their audience in order to persuade them. To further enhance the point that rhetoric is an art, Aristotle divided the means of persuasion into three categories: ethos, pathos, and logos. Each artistic proof used in rhetoric has foundation in the definition of art. Ethos is the ethical appeal that is used for convincing. Ethos follows the idea that we tend to agree with people with whom we respect or who whose moral character we like. This is along the lines of the fourth criteria for Platos definition of art: high moral purpose. Pathos is the means of persuading by appealing to the audiences sense of emotion. A strong emotional response from the audience can enhance the rhetoricians argument.
Comment [JEF3]: Good. Make a few more claims like this in the earlier part of the essay. This demonstrates to me that you are beginning to pull the material together. Comment [JEF2]: Should this be he?

The Pathos description follows the third criteria of art: knowledge of the soul. The soul is the essence of our emotions. To finish, there is Logos, which is the means of persuading by reason and using logic to make it difficult for another rhetorician to rebuttal and challenge the argument. Logos follows the first criteria of art, which is to know truth. This is in the sense that truth resides in the forms and that the forms are what we are trying to reasonably work towards. Conclusively, Aristotles means of rhetorical persuasion make rhetoric an art. Through careful analysis of Plato and Aristotle, we have discovered that Plato thought of rhetoric as having the potential of being an art while Aristotle believed that with proper form, rhetoric was an art. Each have unique points in their own definitions of rhetoric. After examining both sides of the argument, I would tend to agree more with Plato because I have always found that the world works in a situational manner. I believe everything depends on something else. Rhetoric can be an art with the write right person. It can also be used as a flattery with the wrong person. Fundamentally, rhetoric is an art if used properly. Comments: This is quite good. The essay could, as I note in a comment, apply the definition of art more explicitly earlier in the essay. The essay also should mention the difference between Gorgias and Phaedrus.

Question 3: Select three definitions of rhetoric discussed in class. Develop the definitions of rhetoric. Identify and explain relevant differences between the three definitions. Perception, the ability to become aware of something and interpret it differently, is both a curse and a blessing when defining what words, meanings and even what events really mean. It should come as no surprise that a complicated subject such as rhetoric should be any different. Many men throughout history have had their own unique definition of what rhetoric is and
4

should be. To gain further insight on what rhetoric truly is, I will list, define, and explain the differences of the three definitions of rhetoric according to Plato, Aristotle, and the sophists. As stated in the class of Rhetoric and Civic Culture, Plato defines rhetoric as the art of influencing the soul through words, (2014). He further explained that rhetoric could be both a true art and a false art. To be labeled as a true art, it must know truth. Plato believed that truth resided in the forms, which were the ideals that exist in heaven. We all know what the true forms are because we saw them before we were born and when we were in heaven. We use a form of recollection so that our bodies catch glimpses of the forms and therefore trigger our memories. Second, Plato believed that to be a true art, the rhetorician must know the audience and the best way to reach them. Third, a true artist must have knowledge of oratory principles that give an account of his or her own success. Finally, to be a true art, it must have a high moral purpose. The standards to be a true art were set high by Plato and not everyone could make them. If the words went against his definition of art, it was a false art. Therefore, Plato actually viewed rhetoric negatively, and thought of it as a form of manipulation that could be used to not follow truth. It could be used to persuade the masses, which goes against his theory of finding the true form of something that we saw before we were born when we were in heaven. Platos student, Aristotle, later contracted and redefined the definition of rhetoric. Catherine Palczewski, Richard Ice, and John Fritch, authors of the book Rhetoric in Civic Life, said that Aristotle defined rhetoric as an ability in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion, (10). By this definition, Aristotle is describing the use of rhetoric as a situational means. Every situation is different and it depends on the audience, content and context in order to determine the best way to persuade others. The ability to persuade others is no small task. In fact, Aristotle went a step further and listed and defined three artistic proofs that

are used to persuade: ethos, the character of the speaker; pathos, the emotion generated; logos, that which shows reasoning or logic. Furthermore, Aristotle describes rhetoric as having broad context and that which leads to discovery. Rhetoric is the general ken of all humans, meaning that it is something we all do and cannot be avoided. To Aristotle, rhetoric is not a science, but an art in of itself. This complicated art has four functions: to defend yourself, analyze both sides, to teach in a way suitable to a popular audience, and to uphold truth and justice and to downplay their opposites. Thus far, the two definitions of rhetoric and its intended usage provided by the teacher Plato and the student Aristotle have been opposing views. Whereas Plato sees rhetoric as a form of greedy manipulation resulting in evil deeds, Aristotle sees opportunity and views rhetoric with a positive connotation. Plato provided more of a sweeping, generalizable view while Aristotle focused more on the individual situation. They even had contrasting views to the point where Plato labeled rhetoric as dialectic while Aristotle said rhetoric went in place of dialectic. Both men were talking about the same concept, but provided quite different descriptions. The third party, the sophists, increased chaos by adding yet another definition of rhetoric. The sophists were professional teachers of both virtue and rhetoric. The sophists were Gorgias, Protagores, and Isocrates and viewed rhetoric in the opposite form of Plato. Where Plato thought rhetoric was a greedy form of manipulation, the sophists believed that rhetoric was a means for teaching virtue to their students. The communication scholar John Poulakos says that the sophists believed that rhetoric is the art which seeks to capture in opportune moments that which is appropriate and attempts to suggest that which is possible, (Catherine, Ice, and Fritch 11). Poulakos summary of sophist rhetoric by explaining that the sophists, such as Protagoras and Isocrates, believed rhetoric was
Comment [JEF4]: No. You should review this.

an art that could both delight and induce belief. The right things spoken at the right time could entertain, even as it formed peoples knowledge, (Palczewski, Ice & Fritch 11). The sophist definition shows yet another form of rhetoric. Plato thought that the sophists made it too easy for the wrong argument to win. To prove how differing the opinions were in this time period, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a peer review academic resource, said that due in large part to the influence of Plato and Aristotle, the term sophistry has come to signify the deliberate use of fallacious reasoning, intellectual charlatanism and moral unscrupulousness (2013). Plato disagreed with the sophists so much that he literally turned their entire name into an insult. Moreover, like Aristotle, the sophists viewed rhetoric with a positive connotation. However, the sophists were more concerned about the pleasure that rhetoric brought about rather than the four functions that Aristotle described. While rhetoric has been serving important purposes throughout history, the actual definition is debatable and hard to pinpoint as shown by Plato, Aristotle and the sophists. Either way, rhetoric has the ability to persuade and is a great form of communication that still exists in our everyday lives.

Bibliography

Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 22, translated by J. H. Freese. Aristotle. Cambridge and London. Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd. 1926. Catherine, Palczewski, Richard Ice, and John Fritch. Rhetoric in Civic Life. State College, Pennsylvania: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2012. Print. Duke, George. "The Sophists (Ancient Greek)." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p.. Web. 19 Feb 2014. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/sophists/ Henning, Martha L. Friendly Persuasion: Classical Rhetoric--Now! Draft Manuscript. August, 1998. http://www.millikin.edu/wcenter/workshop7b.html