I have two queries about the "On Rhetoric" text, and both of them sort of form together into a larger question, so here it goes.
Aristotle mentions something about humans (those that deal with rhetoric anyway) and truth, and his statement is a bit ambiguous. He states that "humans have a natural disposition for the true and to a large extent hit on the truth; thus an ability to aim at commonly held opinions is a characteristic of one who also has a similar ability to regard to the truth" (33). So humans have a natural disposition for responding to and participation in good rhetorical exchanges simply because they are human? Is Aristotle insisting that all of humanity in general is suited to rhetoric because they have this natural inclination and recognition of the truth, or he is discussing just one section of people? And lastly, do we all have this truthful inclination, and if we are poor rhetors are we just not using our abilities to their full potential?
This leads me to my next question. A paragraph or so later in the text Aristotle goes into the usefulness of rhetoric based on its moral merits. He says, "rhetoric is useful [first] because the true and the just are by nature stronger than their opposites, so that if judgments are not made in the right way [the true and the just] are necessarily defeated [by their opposites]" (34). So he points out that justice is not always present in some judgments and that bad people sometimes win, that makes sense and can be accepted as being clearly mentioned in this statement. But what's this about rhetoric and the good guys? If he points out that rhetoric is useful and then immediately follows that with this "good guys are better than bad guys" statement, is he saying that the true and the just are automatically better at wielding rhetoric as a potential weapon? In the previous paragraph I pointed out the ambiguity of Aristotle's connection between humanity and truth, and it continues its ambiguity here. If humanity is in fact inclined towards truth, does that mean that the "true and just" people are the ones that use that knowledge of truth to the maximum along with rhetoric and this is what makes them stronger than their opposites? Are the "opposites", or the bad guys, the ones that also have this inclination of truth but ignore it, even abuse it, to reach unjust goals?
What is this connection between humans, truth, and the binary of good and evil?
1 comment:
Humanality, truth, good, evil, rhetoric...these are all some heavy terms. Let's see if my interpretations of Aristotle's On Rhetoric can help decipher some of these topics.
Aristotle relates the very human use of rhetoric to truth through saying "humans have a natural disposition for the true and to a large extent hit on the truth; thus an ability to aim at commonly held opinions is a characteristic of one who also has a similar ability to regard to the truth" (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 33). I took this to mean that all humans are inclined to know or search for the truth. Sure, they may alter the truth in order to win a case so as not to be punished. However even those who manipulate truth know the truth before they can manipulate it.
Since all people have an inclination of the truth, then I believe that they do take part in rhetoric simply because of this essential human trait. I believe truth to bring a stability, or commonality (or common ground) among people on how to judge situations, facts, morals, etc. I don't think they have necessarily a "natural recognition of truth" as you put it. And since they don't have the "natural recognition of truth", they engage in rhetoric in order to find the truth. Rhetoric is a great tool to find the truth. Truth is based on fact. It is difficult (but not impossible) to argue fact. For if something is, then it is hard to prove that it is not.
I believe that Aristotle is talking about everybody and not just one section of people. "Among the general public, some do these things [general rhetorical and dialectic practices] randomly" (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 29). This shows that the ability to practice rhetoric is within everyone (even unintentionally), however some are more finely attuned to using this tool than others.
I'm not so sure if the way you use the terms "good guys" and "bad guys" is clear to me. I suppose the "good guys" would be the group that searches for truth and uses rhetoric to persuade on behalf of logical and factual needs. Whereas the "bad guys" use rhetoric to manipulate the truth for their personal advantages. However, I don't think Aristotle was trying to say that (as you put it) "the good and just are automatically better at wielding rhetoric as a potential weapon". I think that rhetoric comes easier to "the good and just", because facts are easier to prove as the truth.
Overall the connection between humans, truth, and the binary of good and evil seems to be rhetoric. For rhetoric is found throughout all of humankind. It is a tool used in order to persuade the audience of a truth. It is up to a human's morality (good or evil) whether or not they manipulate the truth.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.