TCW 103? Not quite...
Happy Monday, ya’ll! Nothing prepares me for the school week better than
some hot coffee in my cat mug and blogging about classical rhetoric. On the
latter subject, I found myself thinking a lot about how and why Aristotle
composed Rhetoric. The introduction that we read suggests that Rhetoric could
possibly be a series of lecture notes compiled by Aristotle’s students. Or,
perhaps, the notes were written by Aristotle, but they were “probably never
intended as a literary work, systematic treatise, or even handbook” (170). In
this way, Rhetoric differs from Phaedrus, which Plato intended to publish.
As Kate mentioned last Friday, Aristotle should feel a lot more
accessible than Plato. I tried to look at why it felt “easier” (I use that term
loosely, the end of Book I was a tad hazy…). For one, the language is much
plainer, which fits with the idea that Rhetoric was meant to be a teaching tool
or lecture notes. I also noticed that Aristotle often includes nice little
transition paragraphs that concisely summarize what he just said, and then set
up what he will say next.
For example, “These, then are the most important kinds of information
which the political speaker must possess. Let us now go back and state the
premises from which he will have to argue in favor of adopting or rejecting
measures regarding these and other matters” (188, first column). In a way,
these transition/summary paragraphs seem to function the way Plato’s interludes
function in Phaedrus.
I also noticed the repetition of words like “further,” “more generally,”
“moreover,” and “again,” which signify his reiteration of key points and
examples. We rarely encountered these words in Phaedrus. Although this text has
been translated, we can still see that Aristotle thoroughly emphasizes his
ideas through many examples, the way many of our professors do during lectures.
I too couldn't help but compare Aristotle with Plato. Although this particular text may be notes from his students (which I have a hard time believing due to how thorough and complete the sentences are), it seems more like writings by a professor, similar to what you stated. Either way, it is very intriguing that it truly is much easier to follow than Phaedrus. I enjoy that Aristotle doesn't beat around the bush, he explains rhetoric thoroughly and bluntly. Plato's visualizations were interesting but they weren't for me.
ReplyDeleteIn Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Aristote’s rhetoric is clear and demonstrative. Surprisingly, many classical writings on rhetoric are convoluted and unclear, especially to an modern audience, which makes Aristotle’s prose appreciable. Aristotle devotes rhetorical thinking in his notes to the clarification and organization of his theories. Aristotle seems to perceive an audience that is less intelligent than Plato’s target. He begins most paragraphs with a clear topic sentence and finishes them with a summary and/or indication of what is to follow. In doing so, the reader is less challenged in deciphering and ordering points. This impressive rhetorical move demonstrates what Plato is well known for being-a psychologically conscientious orator. Aristotle, unlike his elitist mentor, is willing to tailor his speech to his audience. This does not mean compromising the complexity of the argument, an insult to Plato’s Absolute Truth, but rather takes its time in clearly outlining and summarizing the argument to make it more accessible. The notable lack of ornamental language and superfluous metaphor make the prose seem less artful than other classical rhetors, but it is in fact more enlightened in its understanding of its purpose. Aristotle treats the dry subject with a dry writing style that considers clarity paramount. The clear intention is to teach, not entertain. In doing this Aristotle understands a key element to successful rhetoric. By understanding the capabilities of his audience and understanding the intention of his notes, Aristotle produces no poetic thesis, but a superior clear and effective method of discourse on the topic of rhetoric that practices what it preaches.
ReplyDelete