Balancing Morality and Faculty

Aristotle delivers an extremely solid foundation in which to construct the essence of rhetoric in his first book.  In comparison to Plato’s approach to the delineation of this somewhat slippery concept, Aristotle has a no-nonsense way of laying out his premises.  Basically, Aristotle says that rhetoric is argument, or “the art of discovering the means of persuasion available for any occasion.” (30) Once again we see the redundancy of persuasion when defining rhetoric, but this time we get to see persuasion broken down into its subcategories.  Additionally, this first book of rhetoric focuses on how to assess which route of persuasion one must adapt to get their point across, instead of illustrating the effects of persuasion as depicted in Phaedrus.  While Phaedrus beats around the bush to get to the main point, book one of rhetoric is direct and academically rigorous, mirroring Aristotle’s reputation as an “academic thinker” towards rhetoric. (30)

It’s astounding that the parameters laid out thousands of years ago still apply to rhetoric today, and are in fact the focal point of each academic paper we will ever write.  I generally find lists of three to be fairly limiting, but Ethos, Pathos, and Logos really do seem to cover the entire spectrum of what should be covered in order to properly persuade an audience.  I found it satisfying that Aristotle took a much deserved jab at the sophistic movement, saying that, “What makes a man a ‘sophist’ is not his faculty, but his moral purpose.”  (181 top right) I completely agree with this, because talent in public speech can never be a means to the truth.  In fact, more often than not, those gifted with fluent public speaking skills are also fluent in deception because they are aware that the aesthetic of confidence coupled with intelligence will sell to most people.  If only Ethos, Pathos, and Logos were required elements of scrutiny by the masses, and not just those of us who have studied these subjects, we could do away with a lot of corrupt moral rubbish.  Unfortunately, moral purpose cannot be the sole determining factor for persuasiveness because without proper faculty public speaking falls short of believability.  Because of this, arrogance (dressed as confidence) coupled with talent will continue to prevail as credibility, instead of the Logos that Aristotle holds in such high regard.