Greek philosophers who preceded Aristotle, especially Gorgias, Plato, and Isocrates, developed th... more Greek philosophers who preceded Aristotle, especially Gorgias, Plato, and Isocrates, developed their respective views on persuasive discourse (or rhetoric) based upon their larger philosophical projects. Similarly, I will argue in this essay, Aristotle developed his understanding of rhetoric as a part of his larger philosophical project. He not only equates rhetoric, in many respects, to dialectic, but also treats it separately in the Rhetoric, perhaps as thoroughly as he treats dialectic in the Topics, In addition to these two works, Aristotle addresses rhetorical issues in the Prior and Posterior Analytics, the Sophistical Refutation, the Politics, and the Nichomachean Ethics, perhaps in a similar manner as he addresses dialectic in the Prior Analytics (24a22-25, 68b8-14, 46a3-10), the Sophistical Refutation (165bl-4), the Posterior Analytics (81bl8-23), and the Metaphysics (995b21-25). Moreover, the parts that comprise both rhetoric and dialectic syllogism/enthymeme; induction/example; the respective audiences; and the purposes: to inquire, to argue, to persuade all receive considerable discussion throughout his logical and nonlogical works. The similarities of the ways in which Aristotle discusses both rhetoric and dialectic and his repeated claims that rhetoric is a "counterpart to" or "outgrowth of dialectic suggest that, for Aristotle, rhetoric is very closely related to dialectic, that his understanding that rhetoric may be just as much a part of his larger project as is his dialectic understood within the purposes and intended audiences of each and further suggest that in order to understand his view of rhetoric, it is first necessary to understand his view of dialectic.1
ABSTRACT Scholars who have been writing recently about the unity and composition of Aristotle'... more ABSTRACT Scholars who have been writing recently about the unity and composition of Aristotle's Rhetoric make either brief or no mention of the transmission and editorial history of Aristotle's texts. This essay addresses this void by first presenting and discussing Strabo's, Plutarch's, and Porphyry's accounts of the transmission and editorial history of Aristotle's and Theophrastus' texts in conjunction with discussing the list of works that Diogenes Laertius ascribes to both authors. Once the transmission and editorial history is considered, evidence is presented from the Rhetoric that may indicate two important points—the extent to which the text is a compilation of previously independent texts that were ascribed to both Aristotle and Theophrastus and that Andronicus, rather than Aristotle, may be responsible for the text as we have it.
Contrary to a prevailing view within rhetoric and composition circles that finds a positive view ... more Contrary to a prevailing view within rhetoric and composition circles that finds a positive view of rhetoric in the Phaedrus, / contend that Plato mockingly de nounces rhetoric in the Phaedrus. To support this claim, I argue that the Phaedrus is an unmistakable response to Isocrates' Against the Sophists and needs to be understood as part of this dynamic dialogue and that in the Phaedrus Plato is distinguishing his philosophical method, as he conceives it, from Isocrates' pseudo-philosophical method (as conceived by Plato). I provide paral lels between Against the Sophists and the Phaedrus and then explain the distinc tion between Isocrates ' and Plato 's respective conceptions of what the philoso pher is and should do and between each writer's philosophical method.1 Many scholars of contemporary rhetorical and composition studies contend that Plato in the Phaedrus advocates a positive view of rhetoric that has been dubbed philosophical or dialectical rhetoric and that Plato is to be understood as a rhetorician in his own right.2 Bizzell and Herzberg, for example, claim that "[t]he Gorgias develops Plato's most extensive condemnation of false rhetoric, while the Phaedrus displays his most complete realization of true rhetoric" (56). Kathleen Welch also claims that Plato in the Phaedrus "is forthright in his inter pretation of rhetoric's positive force" (94). Welch states further that Plato's rhet oric relies upon "the active interchange of rhetoric and dialectic between two sides actively engaged in a search" (100). As C. Jan Swearingen explains it more recently, "Plato does not abandon rhetoric entirely as a mode of discourse," but instead, he argues for a philosophical and ethical rhetoric that is dialogical and dialectical, that draws upon Socrates' presence in the agora and symposia and his attempts to reintegrate the burgeoning specializa tions of the sophists?in logic, cosmology, epistemology, mathemat ics, and language theory?with the life of daily culture in the sym posia of educated Athenians. (526)
This essay examines three groups of "sources" or "materials" of enthymemes in Aristotle's Rhetori... more This essay examines three groups of "sources" or "materials" of enthymemes in Aristotle's Rhetoric. According to the text of the Rhetoric, enthymemes are derived from, among other things, probabilities, signs, and necessary signs, and/or from the topics, and/or from idia as the following table indicates. 1
This essay examines the inconsistencies in the discussion of proofs in Rhetoric 1.1 and 1.2. Rece... more This essay examines the inconsistencies in the discussion of proofs in Rhetoric 1.1 and 1.2. Recent commentators have attempted to reconcile these inconsistencies by claiming that ethos and pathos are to be understood as rational, inferential, or cognitive aspects of Aristotle's conception of rhetorical proof, thus linking the proofs in 1.2 to those in 1.1. In sharp contrast, I contend that the rift between the two conceptions of rhetorical proofs is even greater than most commentators acknowledge. I argue that there are two completely different conceptions of rhetorical proofs that cannot be reconciled in these two sections of the Rhetoric, that the inconsistencies are due to the tumultuous transmission and editorial history of the corpus Aristotelicum (and not to any of Aristotle's developmental views on rhetoric), and that the transmission and editorial history of the text needs to play a much more important role in our interpretation of the Rhetoric than it has hitherto.
Greek philosophers who preceded Aristotle, especially Gorgias, Plato, and Isocrates, developed th... more Greek philosophers who preceded Aristotle, especially Gorgias, Plato, and Isocrates, developed their respective views on persuasive discourse (or rhetoric) based upon their larger philosophical projects. Similarly, I will argue in this essay, Aristotle developed his understanding of rhetoric as a part of his larger philosophical project. He not only equates rhetoric, in many respects, to dialectic, but also treats it separately in the Rhetoric, perhaps as thoroughly as he treats dialectic in the Topics, In addition to these two works, Aristotle addresses rhetorical issues in the Prior and Posterior Analytics, the Sophistical Refutation, the Politics, and the Nichomachean Ethics, perhaps in a similar manner as he addresses dialectic in the Prior Analytics (24a22-25, 68b8-14, 46a3-10), the Sophistical Refutation (165bl-4), the Posterior Analytics (81bl8-23), and the Metaphysics (995b21-25). Moreover, the parts that comprise both rhetoric and dialectic syllogism/enthymeme; induction/example; the respective audiences; and the purposes: to inquire, to argue, to persuade all receive considerable discussion throughout his logical and nonlogical works. The similarities of the ways in which Aristotle discusses both rhetoric and dialectic and his repeated claims that rhetoric is a "counterpart to" or "outgrowth of dialectic suggest that, for Aristotle, rhetoric is very closely related to dialectic, that his understanding that rhetoric may be just as much a part of his larger project as is his dialectic understood within the purposes and intended audiences of each and further suggest that in order to understand his view of rhetoric, it is first necessary to understand his view of dialectic.1
ABSTRACT Scholars who have been writing recently about the unity and composition of Aristotle'... more ABSTRACT Scholars who have been writing recently about the unity and composition of Aristotle's Rhetoric make either brief or no mention of the transmission and editorial history of Aristotle's texts. This essay addresses this void by first presenting and discussing Strabo's, Plutarch's, and Porphyry's accounts of the transmission and editorial history of Aristotle's and Theophrastus' texts in conjunction with discussing the list of works that Diogenes Laertius ascribes to both authors. Once the transmission and editorial history is considered, evidence is presented from the Rhetoric that may indicate two important points—the extent to which the text is a compilation of previously independent texts that were ascribed to both Aristotle and Theophrastus and that Andronicus, rather than Aristotle, may be responsible for the text as we have it.
Contrary to a prevailing view within rhetoric and composition circles that finds a positive view ... more Contrary to a prevailing view within rhetoric and composition circles that finds a positive view of rhetoric in the Phaedrus, / contend that Plato mockingly de nounces rhetoric in the Phaedrus. To support this claim, I argue that the Phaedrus is an unmistakable response to Isocrates' Against the Sophists and needs to be understood as part of this dynamic dialogue and that in the Phaedrus Plato is distinguishing his philosophical method, as he conceives it, from Isocrates' pseudo-philosophical method (as conceived by Plato). I provide paral lels between Against the Sophists and the Phaedrus and then explain the distinc tion between Isocrates ' and Plato 's respective conceptions of what the philoso pher is and should do and between each writer's philosophical method.1 Many scholars of contemporary rhetorical and composition studies contend that Plato in the Phaedrus advocates a positive view of rhetoric that has been dubbed philosophical or dialectical rhetoric and that Plato is to be understood as a rhetorician in his own right.2 Bizzell and Herzberg, for example, claim that "[t]he Gorgias develops Plato's most extensive condemnation of false rhetoric, while the Phaedrus displays his most complete realization of true rhetoric" (56). Kathleen Welch also claims that Plato in the Phaedrus "is forthright in his inter pretation of rhetoric's positive force" (94). Welch states further that Plato's rhet oric relies upon "the active interchange of rhetoric and dialectic between two sides actively engaged in a search" (100). As C. Jan Swearingen explains it more recently, "Plato does not abandon rhetoric entirely as a mode of discourse," but instead, he argues for a philosophical and ethical rhetoric that is dialogical and dialectical, that draws upon Socrates' presence in the agora and symposia and his attempts to reintegrate the burgeoning specializa tions of the sophists?in logic, cosmology, epistemology, mathemat ics, and language theory?with the life of daily culture in the sym posia of educated Athenians. (526)
This essay examines three groups of "sources" or "materials" of enthymemes in Aristotle's Rhetori... more This essay examines three groups of "sources" or "materials" of enthymemes in Aristotle's Rhetoric. According to the text of the Rhetoric, enthymemes are derived from, among other things, probabilities, signs, and necessary signs, and/or from the topics, and/or from idia as the following table indicates. 1
This essay examines the inconsistencies in the discussion of proofs in Rhetoric 1.1 and 1.2. Rece... more This essay examines the inconsistencies in the discussion of proofs in Rhetoric 1.1 and 1.2. Recent commentators have attempted to reconcile these inconsistencies by claiming that ethos and pathos are to be understood as rational, inferential, or cognitive aspects of Aristotle's conception of rhetorical proof, thus linking the proofs in 1.2 to those in 1.1. In sharp contrast, I contend that the rift between the two conceptions of rhetorical proofs is even greater than most commentators acknowledge. I argue that there are two completely different conceptions of rhetorical proofs that cannot be reconciled in these two sections of the Rhetoric, that the inconsistencies are due to the tumultuous transmission and editorial history of the corpus Aristotelicum (and not to any of Aristotle's developmental views on rhetoric), and that the transmission and editorial history of the text needs to play a much more important role in our interpretation of the Rhetoric than it has hitherto.
Uploads
Papers by Brad McAdon