Contrasting Attitudes Towards Rhetoric: Aristotle and Plato
Even though Plato and Aristotle shared some attitudes towards the use of rhetoric in politics, they differed sharply in most cases. Plato believed that the use of rhetoric could have serious negative impacts on the society if it were used by people whose character was not beyond reproach (Nichols 1987).
Plato's Attitude Towards Rhetoric
Plato's attitude towards the use of rhetoric differed sharply from that of Aristotle who believed rhetoric was a useful tool that could be used to persuade people and rally them to engage in meaningful activities in the society. Both Aristotle and Plato appreciated the power of rhetoric in politics and deliberations. However, whereas Aristotle focused on the positive side of rhetoric, thus being its advocate, Plato focused on the harm that the use of rhetoric could do to a society. During the fourth and fifth centuries, individuals who had mastered the art of using rhetoric often became powerful people in the society (Morrow 1953). It became necessary for political leaders to master the use of rhetoric to enable them to persuade assemblies. Initially, Plato did not have a soft place for rhetoricians. He considered their art of persuasion to be contemptible (Morrow 1953). This paper will explore the contrasting attitudes towards rhetoric as demonstrated by Aristotle and Plato and compare their views on the role rhetoric plays in political activity and deliberation.
Rhetoric in Politics
Plato’s earlier views about the use of rhetoric appear to have changed with time. In the Gorgias, Plato referred to rhetoric as a sham. In his view, rhetoric purported to guide men without emphasizing on the knowledge of principles that were a foundation for a wise counsel (Morrow 1953). This attitude seems to have changed drastically since, in Phaedrus, Plato speaks favourably about rhetoric. He demonstrates a positive attitude when he describes rhetoric as a very a great art of leading souls (Morrow 1953). Nevertheless, Plato’s earlier attitude towards rhetoricians remains almost the same. Plato argues that for an individual to become a genuine rhetorician, one needs to master the relevant knowledge that relates to the use of rhetoric (Klosko 1993). One must have the knowledge of the soul over which rhetoric is exercised. A genuine artist must know rhetoric’s different kinds of souls and the powers that act on each soul. Such a knowledgeable person should be well-versed in matters that he wants to persuade others to believe. Plato referred to such a person as a true philosophical rhetorician because he uses rhetoric to supplement what he already knows (Klosko 1993). Therefore, a genuine practitioner of this art of persuasion relies on it to develop more effective insights. This would be different for unscrupulous practitioners who use the art on matters they do not understand too well (Morrow 1953). In essence, Plato was against the use of rhetoric by some of the orators to compensate for errors or important omissions in their speech. Plato felt that it was potentially dangerous for ignorant public speakers to use rhetoric to convince ignorant listeners, thus end up misleading the public (Griswold 2003). Therefore, mastering the art of persuasion was merely preliminaries but not the real art. The real art could only be mastered if an individual had critical knowledge of the subject matter under discussion (Quimby 1974).
Aristotle's Attitude Towards Rhetoric
In contrast to Plato’s views, Aristotle argues that it is indeed the public which needs to be knowledgeable on the issues that their political leaders are advocating for (Yack 2006). The audience needs to be knowledgeable for them to get the best from their political leaders. If leaders give persuasive speeches to ignorant audiences, they will have to lower their views and arguments to persuade them. This means that even the most trustworthy and admirable leaders will have to give low-level ideas to persuade their audience. Therefore, an ignorant audience increases its vulnerability to persuasive leaders (Yack 2006). This means that the public cannot afford to be ignorant on political issues since it should be in a position to discern cunning and genuine leaders who try to persuade its members. As such, rhetoric serves an important role in encouraging people to acquire the necessary information to enable them to participate in political activities. Dealing with knowledgeable people makes political deliberation more fruitful than when dealing with ignorant audiences (Lawson-Tancred 1991).
Plato's Changing Views
Plato’s toward the use of rhetoric has been discussed by various writers who believed that Plato viewed rhetoric negatively. Perhaps his attitude toward it was attributable to his disdain for the Athenian culture (Quimby 1974). The Athenians found rhetoric to be a useful tool that could be used in politics. What Plato tried to suggest in the Phaedrus was way beyond the reach of many. The ideal rhetoric that Plato recommended appeared to be impractical for many in those days. Plato was concerned about using rhetoric in a virtuous way (Quimby 1974). This suggests that Plato did not have a problem with the use of rhetoric in deliberations or political activities as long as it was used in a truthful way. Moreover, Plato emphasized that the motive of the user of rhetoric was essential in determining whether or not its use in deliberations was right (Quimby 1974).
Understanding Rhetoric: Plato's Analysis
According to Quimby (1974), it is possible that Plato had not understood the function and nature of rhetoric in the beginning since to examine rhetoric, one needs to first remove it from social activities such as education and government. It was only after Plato developed the dialectical method of division and collection that he began to have a better understanding of rhetoric. This explanation accounts for Plato’s change of views from Gorgias to Phaedrus. Therefore, in the Phaedrus, Plato developed fully some of the ideas that he had discussed in Gorgias (Quimby 1974).
Different Approaches to Politics
At the same time, Plato and Aristotle appear to have a different understanding of politics. Plato viewed politics as a means through which leaders who understood the truth could guide their followers toward doing what the society considered to be good (Quimby 1974). This view suggests that Plato believed leaders ought to have been responsible and accountable for the way they guided their followers. On the other hand, Aristotle does not demand such a high degree of accountability and responsibility from leaders. In Politics, Aristotle describes people as rational and political beings (Yack 2006). Human beings have the ability to make political arguments and analyze political speeches. Aristotle seems to have had much confidence in the public reason, which explains why he did not see any need to constrain reason or political arguments. Moreover, Aristotle believed that political deliberation relied on appeals to one’s emotion and character backed by reasons (Martin 2014). Unlike Plato who appears to suggest that political leaders are responsible for the arguments they pass to the society and how their society understands their arguments, Aristotle believes that the society is ultimately responsible for the inferences it makes from political speeches and arguments (Yack 2006). According to Aristotle, political deliberation is essential in politics because it allows citizens to discuss various issues among themselves to chart the way forward on how they should direct their political communities’ actions. Citizens make political arguments when contributing to the issue under discussion, after which they consider all arguments together before reaching a collective decision on which views to support (Yack 2006).
Aristotle's Justification
Whereas Plato was concerned about political leaders using rhetoric for the wrong motives, Aristotle does not share such worries. Aristotle argues that even if political leaders were to have wrong motives, they would need to convince the people why they think their idea is the best. This art of persuading the masses rules out arguments that are explicitly self-serving (Yack 2006). Even if a leader were to use rhetoric to portray something that would serve their own interest, they would have to think of something that is good for the community as well. In the end, both the society and the individual leader would have benefited from the idea that the political leader was advocating for (Yack 2006). Moreover, Aristotle justifies the idea of political leaders using rhetoric for their selfish gains by noting that political leaders should have an interest in all matters they advocate on behalf of their citizens. Political leaders are not required to be impartial. All political deliberators are supposed to be thinking about their own future as well as that of their communities (Dow 2015).
Conclusion
Aristotle’s attitude toward the use of rhetoric differed sharply from that of Plato. Aristotle advocated for the use of unconstrained rhetoric in politics. He saw rhetoric as something beneficial to the society. According to Aristotle, rhetoric plays an important role in making the society more knowledgeable, which prepares its members for political activities and deliberations. This is because people are already aware that their political leaders will use rhetoric to persuade them. As such, people need to be knowledgeable to engage their leaders and discern those who are trying to use rhetoric to exploit them. This is a fundamental difference between Aristotle’s arguments for rhetoric and those of Plato. According to Plato, rhetoric demands that leaders should be knowledgeable to use it to their advantage when engaging in political activities.
References
ListDow, J 2015, Passions and persuasion in Aristotle’s rhetoric, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Griswold, CL 2003, ‘Plato on rhetoric and poetry’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-rhetoric/
Klosko, G 1993, ‘Persuasion and moral reform in Plato and Aristotle’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, vol. 47, no. 184, pp. 31-49.
Lawson-Tancred, HC 1991, Introduction to Aristotle's ‘The Art of Rhetoric’, Penguin, London.
Martin, J 2014, Politics and rhetoric: A critical introduction, Routledge, New York.
Morrow, GR 1953, 'Plato's concept of persuasion', The Philosophical Review, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 234-250.
Nichols, MP 1987, ‘Aristotle’s defense of rhetoric’, The Journal of Politics, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 657-677.
Quimby, RW 1974, 'The growth of Plato's perception of rhetoric', Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 71-79.
Yack, B 2006, 'Rhetoric and public reasoning: an Aristotelian understanding of political deliberation’, Political Theory, vol. 34, no. 4, pp.417-438.
