Book 2 of Aristotle’s Rhetoric
catalogues a wide variety of persuasive topics and tactics (particulars)
without spending too much time on any single one. Book 2 also serves as one of the founding
texts in the field of psychology, so, in other words, Book 2 is a lot to take in.
For me, all
of the particulars that Aristotle lists add up to his overriding universal:
rhetoric, and represent his attempt at accounting for every possible method of
persuasion. However, as I read, I feel
that I discovered the “missing link(s)” that connects his universal concept of
rhetoric as a whole to his particular opinions on psychology, pathos, ethos,
logos, etc. One of these missing links
is the fact that all of these topics are linked
to one another; indeed, they contain each other like some kind of
impossible/paradoxical Russian nesting dolls.
Imagine an arrow drawn between each rhetorical element. Each affects the other, and none exists in a
vacuum. For example, pathos is affected
by logos just as logos is affected by pathos, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. I say all of this is to provide the framework
for the second “missing link” that connects Aristotle’s particulars to his
universal concept of rhetoric: the dialectic—the union of opposites.
For
Aristotle, dialectic is an essential component of rhetoric, and
vice-versa. Book 2 reveals the
importance of dialectical (logical) discussion in terms of rhetorical
persuasion in the form of public speaking (or writing). Similar to Hegel’s notion of the dialectic
process, Aristotle argues that each emotion and state of being contains its
opposite within itself in the form of potential—there can be no life without
death, there can be no beginning without an end, etc., etc. Within the infinitely interconnected
dialectic of Aristotle’s conceptualization of rhetoric (as universal and
particulars), I was shocked at the
present-day ramifications. Allow me to
explain.
Everything I’ve written thus far
has been in service of logically establishing my train of thought. This is a rhetorical tactic I’ve chosen because of its inherent logic. I, as writer, am giving you, as reader, the
proverbial bread crumbs that I feel you need to retrace my mental steps. The tone of this writing has also been stiff
and overly erudite. This was also a
choice on my behalf, meant to prove one of Aristotle’s most shocking points:
that logical, universal-centered argumentation filled with “convoluted
sentences” failed in both Aristotle’s day and continues to fail in ours. Aristotle claims that:
The uneducated are more persuasive
than the educated [when speaking] before crowds, just as the poets say the
uneducated are more “inspired by the Muses” in a crowd; for [the educated]
reason with axioms and universals, [the uneducated] on the basis of what
[particulars] they know and instances near their experience. (169)
Taking this line of argumentation a step further,
“uneducated” or under-educated individuals are most likely not only more persuasive,
but more easily persuadable than their more educated peers. It’s astounding to read this 2,000-year-old
document at a time when the current President of the United States has openly
professed his love for uneducated, gullible Americans who will (and did)
believe anything he said regardless of any truth value (to paraphrase him
loosely). President Trump, himself an
educated man who received his B.S. (double entendre intended) degree in
Economics from the University of Pennsylvania, seemingly outsmarted his
opponents in the 2016 election by way of “out-dumbing” them in the public
eye. By activating the Muses of
passionate, angry fear and xenophobic patriotism, Trump successfully inspired
crowds upon crowds of potential voters to support him while his competitors
stuck with boring ol’ facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment