Aristotle as a Psychologist

Aristotle as a Psychologist

The introduction on Aristotle named him a pioneer of individual and group psychology.  With this in mind, I began reading Rhetoric with the following questions in mind, “Why/how is Aristotle a psychologist?”  “An early quote relating to his understanding of a collective audience’s mindset on 183 reads, “Our judgments when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile.”  Basically, if in a good mood, a listener is more receptive to persuasion.  The concept seems simple, but it is important for the rhetor to keep in mind that more than the content of the argument is necessary for effective persuasion.  Aristotle seems to provide a grudgingly hypocritical look at these non-content based rhetorical moves, however, acknowledging their importance, but nevertheless maintaining that logic and reason are the most important and noble forms of rhetoric.  This is reflected somewhat in his description of the three means of persuasion, first is reason and logic, but then come understanding human character and understanding emotions.  The integral parts of persuasion for Aristotle include large elements that have nothing to do with the particular argument.  For instance, in his discussion of forensic rhetoric, Aristotle makes a distinction between written law and true justice.  He claims written law is a sham in comparison to Absolute Truth and that a wise judge will clearly see that is the case.  Therefore, by understanding the psychology of a judge who considers truth more important then law a rhetor will know to make appeals to the spirit of laws and not their letter.  Conversely, it can be assumed, if a rhetor deems the judge to be unwise, it may be prudent to appeal to the literal wording of the laws so as to convince the unenlightened audience.