A Comparison of Rhetoric in Plato and Aristotle's Political Thought

This essay undertakes a comparative analysis of Plato and Aristotle's treatment of rhetoric within their respective political philosophies. It begins by defining rhetoric as the art of persuasion and acknowledges Aristotle's comprehensive definition, highlighting its connection to both politics and logic, as opposed to Plato's critical perspective, particularly in 'Gorgias', where rhetoric is likened to a deceptive practice. The essay then delves into Plato's view, emphasizing his skepticism and the potential for misuse of rhetorical power, contrasting it with Aristotle's emphasis on ethos, pathos, and logos as essential components of effective persuasion. The discussion highlights Aristotle's focus on the speaker's credibility (ethos), the emotional appeal to the audience (pathos), and the logical reasoning (logos) used in argumentation. The essay finds Aristotle's views more compelling, arguing that his approach allows rhetoric to be used ethically for education and promoting good conduct, while Plato's view sees rhetoric as inherently manipulative. The essay concludes by reiterating the key differences in their approaches, with Aristotle's emphasis on experience and observation, versus Plato's reliance on virtue and morality.

Running head: THINKING POLITICALLY
Thinking Politically
Compare and contrast the treatment of rhetoric in the political thought of Plato and
Aristotle. Which view do you find more compelling?
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1THINKING POLITICALLY
Introduction
The rhetoric can be defined as the art discourse, in which the writer tends to persuade or
inform a particular section of population or the audience (Jewel, 2016). Aristotle has given the
best definition of rhetoric whichopines that rhetoric can be defined as the combination of both
politics and logic. The rhetoric is considered as one of the most important works on persuasion.
As compared to Aristotle, the theories of Plato mention that the subsequent theories of rhetoric
are considered as response to the original theory being created by Aristotle (Goulimari, 2014).
This can be attributed to the disciplinary divisions, which can be dated back to Peter Ramus
attacks on Aristotle. This essay would analyze the different perspectives of both Aristotle and
Plato. It would also argue on the views, which becomes more appealing.
Discussion
Plato’s opinion regarding the rhetoriccan’t be considered as high opinion since in the
Gorgias, the concept of rhetoric was compared to that of “sham” which misguided men to
counsel with underlying principles (Cope, 2015). He argued that the rhetoric has the power to
stand up against everyone else and it can win over vast multitudes of everything. He also
supports the fact that if a man, after learning rhetoric, misuses his power, then it is not justifiable
to ban and detest his teacher (Cope, 2015). This is because of the fact the teacher cannot be
blamed for his teachings. He may have imparted instructions that were to be used in the right
context, but the pupil may have made wrong use of the same. Plato concluded that it is correct to
detest the concerned misuser, kill him and instead spare his teacher (Cornford, 2014).
The primary function of the rhetoric is to lead the souls and master this art form
(Dominik, 2014). Plato engaged in the idea of exploring the nature of soul, on which rhetoric

2THINKING POLITICALLY
was to be used. He pondered upon the idea whether the soul was uniform, one or there are
several kinds of the soul (Cope, 2015). If there is existence of different kinds of souls, then Plato
also pondered that whether the power of acting belonged to each individual soul or the overall
ones (Kastely, 2015). Plato found that the implications of this technique is interesting. One
leader who is aware of the human nature should possess a diabolical power or divine power so
that he can use the human beings in a way he wishes to (Cope, 2015). In this situation, Plato has
made a distinction between non-philosophical and philosophical uses of this art (Hegel, 2015).
He opined the fact that a genuine rhetorician should be aware of the truth of the matters for the
reason he is engaging in pursuing his people (Morrow, 1953, pp. 241). A man should know the
difference between two fundamental units so that he can actually persuade the people in a better
way.
As compared to the views of Plato, rhetoric view of Aristotle usually focuses on the
aspects of pathos and ethos. Both these concepts have been known to affect judgment
(Furley&Nehamas, 2015). The ethos and pathos are known to affect the audience when it is
important for the speaker to engage in persuasion with the audience. A third type of appeal was
also pointed by Aristotle that is concerned with the logos, which the writer or the speaker should
use a tool for persuasion (Hegel, 2015). Aristotle argued that the ethos is portrayed during the act
of persuasion and it is concerned with the characteristics of the speaker. There are three basic
pre-requisites which are needed to appear credible (Hegel, 2015).They are competence, empathy
and good intention (Yack, 2006, pp. 421). The speaker’s ethos is usually transmitted through the
modes of self-portrayal, which is influenced further by paraverbal and non-verbal factors
(Gallez& Reynders, 2015). There is no general good or general bad which is relevant in
impression management and self-portrayal. Each action should always be interpreted in the

3THINKING POLITICALLY
proper context of the situation or the speech (Hegel, 2015). On the other hand, pathos discloses
the emotional influence of the speaker on the audience. The primary objective of the pathos is to
minimize the ability of the person to judge. There is one possibility of using by the method of
figure of speech (Gallez & Reynders, 2015). The figures should be used to use specific content
as well as arguments in background or foreground. Aristotle also focused on the idea of logos,
which is an appeal towards the logical reasoning (Hegel, 2015). This enables the speakers to
demonstrate the argument which appears sound to the audience. For the purpose of
argumentation of the arguments, the various kinds of proofs as well as reasoning are of primary
concern. The proofs can comprise of both natural as well as artificial proofs (Gallez& Reynders,
2015). The natural proofs are the ones in which different kinds of data such as testimonies and
documents are being given. On the other hand, the technical proofs are the ones which comprise
of a combination of information as well as the art of logic.
He observed that the tools of rhetoric were being used to manipulate the emotion of
others by the omission of several facts (Gallez& Reynders, 2015). He opined that logic is often
closely related with reasoning so that a level of scientific certainty can be reached. Rhetoric was
often compared with persuading the general audience by the use of probable knowledge so that
the practical issues can be resolved.
The works of Aristotle was based on hypothesis, observation and experimentation, while
the works of Plato was based on virtue and morality (Baer, 2015). The works of Plato had
lengthy discussions on various matters of courage, wisdom and justice. He also discusses the role
of morality and ethics in philosophy and how the concept of rhetoric was formulated. The views
of Aristotle arehighly critical regarding the ideal constitution which is being set by Plato

4THINKING POLITICALLY
Republic and on the grounds of political unity. It also overvalued political unity and it embraces
communism system in which there is inimical to the human nature.
I find that the views of Aristotle were more compelling since he believed in the fact that
this technique can be used to educate others. On the other hand, Plato believed in the fact that the
rhetoric was considered as an evil since it often persuaded others to act in a poor way. Aristotle
view was mostly based on the fact that the truth can be reached through the use of intellects with
the help of several tools such as affirmative, denial and others (Barnes, 2014). This also forms
the crux of Aristotle’s views which would have a direct influence on the readers or the audience.
The views of Aristotleare more ethical and believes in the fact that this can convince others to
perform good as the character of the speaker is being taken into account (Gallez& Reynders,
2015). He also trusted the good character of the speaker, which would make the readers to
believe about the credibility of the content (Chroust, 2015). This was strictly refuted by Plato,
who argued that the character of the speaker could not be trusted and hence rhetoric would be
unable to provide any good to the society (Gallez& Reynders, 2015).
There were significant differences between the ways rhetoric was viewed by both
Aristotle and Plato. Aristotle was used to achieve the ideal state with the help of rhetoric and on
the other hand, Plato believed in the fact that the rhetoric was unable to achieve the ideal state of
convincing the audience. Aristotle believed that universal forms were not always attached to
each other while Plato thought that experiments as well as reasoning are sufficient to establish a
concept. On the other hand, Aristotle believed that experience and direct observation would be
sufficient to establish the quality of an object.
Conclusion

5THINKING POLITICALLY
The link between Aristotle and Plato is obvious and knowledge is considered as virtue.
The knowing of the right thing would lead to automatic performance of the right thing. The act
of rhetoric was used to influence or manipulate others by adjusting the factors of omitting facts
and the manipulation of various emotions. Plato was involved in the blame as well as arrest of
Socrates at the context of sophisticated rhetoric. The primary theory of Aristotle was based on
the dialectic and logic factors. The rhetoric was considered as a practical debate for persuading
the general audience by using the probable knowledge. This essay discussed several ways means
of comparison between the views of Plato and Aristotle. The views of Aristotle were more
compelling and this is because of the fact that he viewed rhetoric as an ethical one.

6THINKING POLITICALLY
References
Baer, R. (2015). Ethics, values, virtues, and character strengths in mindfulness-based
interventions: a psychological science perspective. Mindfulness, 6(4), 956-969.
Barnes, J. (Ed.). (2014). Complete Works of Aristotle, Volume 1: The Revised Oxford
Translation (Vol. 1). Princeton University Press.
Chroust, A. H. (2015). Aristotle: New Light on His Life and On Some of His Lost Works, Volume
2: Observations on Some of Aristotle's Lost Works. Routledge.
Cope, P. E. M. (2015). Platos Gorgias. Scholars Choice.
Cornford, F. M. (2014). Plato's cosmology: the Timaeus of Plato. Routledge.
Dominik, W. J. (2014). Roman Poetry and Rhetoric: A Reminder of the Affinity between the two
Arts. Akroterion, 37(2).
Furley, D. J., &Nehamas, A. (Eds.). (2015). Aristotle's" Rhetoric": Philosophical Essays.
Princeton University Press.
Gallez, E., & Reynders, A. (2015). Court interpreting and classical rhetoric: Ethos in interpreter-
mediated monological discourse. Interpreting, 17(1), 64-90.
Goulimari, P. (2014). Literary Criticism and Theory: From Plato to Postcolonialism. Routledge.
Hegel, G. W. F. (2015). The philosophy of right. Hackett Publishing.
Jewel, L. A. (2016). Old-School Rhetoric and New-School Cognitive Science: The Enduring
Power of Logocentric Categories.

7THINKING POLITICALLY
Kastely, J. L. (2015). The Rhetoric of Plato's Republic: Democracy and the Philosophical
Problem of Persuasion. University of Chicago Press.
Morrow, G. R. (1953). Plato's conception of persuasion. The Philosophical Review, 62(2), 234-
250.
Yack, B. (2006). Rhetoric and public reasoning: An Aristotelian understanding of political
deliberation. Political Theory, 34(4), 417-438.

8THINKING POLITICALLY
Bibliography
Depew, D. J. (1996). Aristotle's" Rhetoric": An Art of Character. Journal of the History of
Philosophy, 34(3), 454-456.
Minogue, K. (2006). Rationalism revisited. Society, 43(2), 81-87.
Quimby, R. W. (1974). The growth of Plato's perception of rhetoric. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 71-79.