After reading pg.1-90 it baffles me that Aristotle was ever
a student of Plato’s because, Aristotle 100% supports the idea of rhetoric.
Although at some points in the reading you can see Plato’s teachings shinning
through Aristotle’s writing. It just surprises me that Aristotle became so fond
of the idea of rhetoric.
He also strays away from everything relying on knowledge.
Although he states that a court of law should surround the idea of knowledge,
he recognizes that often cases are based off the use of enthymemes.
Essentially, enthymemes are emotions that are often used to persuade. Although
often court cases are supposed to be based solely on fact, when examined some
of the greatest cases were won by the use of enthymemes. Everything Aristotle
discusses in pg. 1-90 can be used to analyze lawyer’s arguments. It is pretty
hard for a lawyer to win a case without appealing at least slightly to the
judge’s emotions. It’s funny to me that Aristotle argues that enthymemes
shouldn’t be used but, then goes on to tell people how to use them and how to
spot them.
Aristotle also breaks down forensic, political, and
ceremonial oratory, which we have discussed previously in class. He also
discusses the greater or lesser good. This question I feels is always raised in
society, is a smaller bad action justified when compared to a bigger bad
action? Or is a bad action big or small just considered bad? Throughout the 90
pages Aristotle constantly compares everything as the greater or lesser good.
I could see Plato’s teachings when in the latter half of the
reading Aristotle talks about virtue. He says that virtue is praiseworthy and
discusses the various different forms of virtue and their importance. After
though he simplifies it and says; “ it is evident that things productive of
virtue are noble.” What other ways did you guys see Plato's teachings in Aristotle's book of rhetoric?
Aristotle also talks about the power of praise and how it is
usually used to encourage a course of action. This reminded me of how often we
give someone a compliment before asking a favor of them. Aristotle ends this section of his book by discussing laws and how they function. He places a large emphasis on the importance of oaths and their use in the court of law.
Hi Claire!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about Aristotle and the court of law. Court cases are really just venues for enthymemes and rhetoric to defend someone and their actions with beliefs and relative information, without any concrete knowledge being the center focus. If there was concrete knowledge in court cases, then we wouldn't need juries and check systems. I noticed that you said enthymemes are essentially emotions that are used to persuade, and I thought that was interesting. In Book II, Aristotle really delves into the subject of emotions and their properties. Emotions work very powerfully in the court system, as you also mentioned, and I found some ties between Aristotle's definitions and things that often occur in court. He writes about vengeance as a feeling and a motive, and how "we also feel calm if we think that the offender will not see that he is punished on our account and because of the way he treated us" (Book II, Chapter 3, p. 99). He goes through the whole spectrum of emotions and how they are relative to each other. Like when he says that being calm is basically the lack of anger, or the opposite of being angry. It makes sense, but I feel that that's like saying yellow is the opposite of purple. Aristotle makes things that are very abstract appear simple and real, which I liked in this book.
Claire-
ReplyDeleteI think you really hit a point when talking about Aristotle's use of enthymemes-- the court system is generated by emotional appeal to a certain extent when actual material evidence isn't 100% available.. and even if it is, it is important to portray it in the best manner in order to persuade the court. It is interesting to me that Aristotle continues to evaluate the human psyche and propose a list of ways to influence the audience. In a sense, this almost contradicts Plato's teachings entirely (to answer your question). He covers several aspects of persuasion: acting friendly with the audience, presenting arguments that allow them to feel confident in their decisions as opposed to fearful, pitying the other side when circumstances permit, and even incorporating how age affects decision-making. He is basically listing endless examples of how to get an audience on your arguments side.
-McKenna