Aristotle writes, "persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others" (182). The "make us think" phrase really caught my eye; is this some sort of charade we put on, a show to get others to believe in what we're saying? Or does the speaker actually have a solid reputation, or ethos, with which to build his argument? It's not hard to take these ideas and apply them to modern-day politicians, preachers, or any other form of celebrity, and to then examine whether Aristotle's classification of happiness and its parts can apply to these figures. The question remains, then: do Aristotle's definitions of what makes up a successful rhetorician hold true even today?
I found myself agreeing with him, generally. It's not hard to feel persuaded by someone you respect and admire, letting their ethos dictate your own personal beliefs. However, when Aristotle claims fame as a constituent to happiness and goes on to define it as "being respected by everybody, or having some quality that is desired by all men" (189), I had to pause. For how many people do we know that are famous for undesirable reasons? They've become influential figures, even without holding themselves to the highest moral standard. Perhaps they've simply become entertainment figures, though; just because they're famous doesn't mean we've been persuaded to believe everything they argue for. I might just be searching for counter-arguments, but I'm stuck on the idea that ethos could be but an act in the "demonstration" (180) that is persuasion. Do we, as audience members, have an obligation to discern the ethos of the speaker, or do we sit idly and let the information come to us? Aristotle neatly defines just how the speakers can apply rhetoric to their audience, but it seems like more focus should be put on the audience and the large role they play in the success of the rhetorician. More questions keep popping into my head the further I read... We'll see what answers arise.
Molly, I wrote about the constituents of happiness in my blog and how they could have changed today and if the same constituents would be as important now as they were then, so I see what you are saying when you question the idea of fame as being an important constituent. I like how you come from the idea that Aristotle is putting on a show, but at the same time maybe that is what is desirable. I also like how you wrote, "Aristotle neatly defines just how the speakers can apply rhetoric to their audience, but it seems like more focus should be put on the audience and the large role they play in the success of the rhetorician." I never thought about how the audience does not receive as much credit as they should; after all they are the ones who decide which rhetoric was more persuasive than the others. Your blog got me thinking about similar questions I was coming across as I read Book I, and also made me think about the audience in a way I had not before.
ReplyDeleteI love that you question whether the same constituents would still be important today, Jennie! That is so fascinating to think about, and without going into too much depth, I think the answer is both yes and no. I also think that question warrants an entirely new conversation. Thanks for commenting!
ReplyDelete