Why Does Aristotle Think Rhetoric Is More of an Art Than Science

Rhetoric may exist divers as the faculty of observing in any given example the available means of persuasion. This is not a role of any other art. Every other art tin can instruct or persuade about its own item subject-affair; for instance, medicine nearly what is healthy and unhealthy, geometry about the properties of magnitudes, arithmetic nigh numbers, and the same is true of the other arts and sciences. But rhetoric we wait upon equally the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject field presented to united states of america; and that is why we say that, in its technical character, it is not concerned with any special or definite class of subjects.

Of the modes of persuasion some belong strictly to the art of rhetoric and some do non. Past the latter I mean such things every bit are non supplied past the speaker but are there at the kickoff -- witnesses, show given under torture, written contracts, so on. Past the former I mean such as we can ourselves construct by means of the principles of rhetoric. The one kind has merely to exist used, the other has to be invented.

[1356a] Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal grapheme of the speaker; the 2nd on putting the audience into a sure frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the spoken language itself. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to brand u.s.a. recollect him credible. Nosotros believe good men more fully and more than readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. This kind of persuasion, like the others, should be achieved by what the speaker says, non by what people call up of his character before he begins to speak. It is not true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost be called the near constructive means of persuasion he possesses. Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile. It is towards producing these furnishings, as we maintain, that present-24-hour interval writers on rhetoric directly the whole of their efforts. This subject field shall be treated in detail when we come up to speak of the emotions. Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the voice communication itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question.

There are, so, these 3 ways of effecting persuasion. The human being who is to be in command of them must, it is articulate, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human grapheme and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions-that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the manner in which they are excited. It thus appears that rhetoric is an offshoot of dialectic and also of upstanding studies. Ethical studies may fairly be chosen political; and for this reason rhetoric masquerades every bit political science, and the professors of it as political experts-sometimes from want of education, sometimes from ostentation, sometimes owing to other human failings. Every bit a matter of fact, information technology is a branch of dialectic and like to it, equally we said at the starting time. Neither rhetoric nor dialectic is the scientific study of any ane separate field of study: both are faculties for providing arguments. This is perhaps a sufficient account of their scope and of how they are related to each other.

With regard to the persuasion achieved by proof or [1356b] credible proof: merely every bit in dialectic there is induction on the one paw and syllogism or apparent syllogism on the other, so it is in rhetoric. The example is an induction, the enthymeme is a syllogism, and the apparent enthymeme is an apparent syllogism. I telephone call the enthymeme a rhetorical syllogism, and the example a rhetorical induction. Every one who effects persuasion through proof does in fact use either enthymemes or examples: in that location is no other way. And since every one who proves annihilation at all is spring to utilise either syllogisms or inductions (and this is clear to us from the Analytics ), it must follow that enthymemes are syllogisms and examples are inductions. The divergence between case and enthymeme is made obviously by the passages in the Topics where induction and syllogism have already been discussed. When we base of operations the proof of a suggestion on a number of like cases, this is induction in dialectic, example in rhetoric; when it is shown that, certain propositions being true, a farther and quite distinct proposition must as well exist true in outcome, whether invariably or ordinarily, this is called syllogism in dialectic, enthymeme in rhetoric. Information technology is plainly also that each of these types of oratory has its advantages. Types of oratory, I say: for what has been said in the Methodics applies equally well hither; in some oratorical styles examples prevail, in others enthymemes; and in similar manner, some orators are amend at the sometime and some at the latter. Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the other kind, simply those which rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause. The sources of examples and enthymemes, and their proper uses, we will hash out later. Our adjacent step is to define the processes themselves more conspicuously.

A statement is persuasive and credible either because information technology is directly self-evident or because information technology appears to be proved from other statements that are then. In either case information technology is persuasive because at that place is somebody whom it persuades. But none of the arts theorize about individual cases. Medicine, for example, does not conjecture about what will assistance to cure Socrates or Callias, but just about what will aid to cure whatever or all of a given class of patients: this alone is business: individual cases are so infinitely various that no systematic knowledge of them is possible. In the same fashion the theory of rhetoric is concerned non with what seems likely to a given individual similar Socrates or Hippias, simply with what seems likely to men of a given type; and this is true of dialectic also. Dialectic does not construct its syllogisms out of any haphazard materials, such as the fancies of crazy people, simply out of materials that call for give-and-take; and rhetoric, too, draws upon the regular subjects of contend. [1357a] The duty of rhetoric is to deal with such matters as we deliberate upon without arts or systems to guide us, in the hearing of persons who cannot accept in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long concatenation of reasoning. The subjects of our deliberation are such as seem to present us with culling possibilities: about things that could not have been, and cannot now or in the time to come be, other than they are, nobody who takes them to be of this nature wastes his fourth dimension in deliberation.

Information technology is possible to form syllogisms and draw conclusions from the results of previous syllogisms; or, on the other hand, from premisses which have non been thus proved, and at the aforementioned fourth dimension are so trivial accepted that they call for proof. Reasonings of the former kind will necessarily be hard to follow owing to their length, for nosotros assume an audition of untrained thinkers; those of the latter kind will fail to win assent, because they are based on premisses that are not generally admitted or believed.

The enthymeme and the case must, so, deal with what is in the main contingent, the example existence an induction, and the enthymeme a syllogism, about such matters. The enthymeme must consist of few propositions, fewer often than those which make upwards the normal syllogism. For if any of these propositions is a familiar fact, there is no demand even to mention it; the hearer adds it himself. Thus, to prove that Dorieus has been victor in a competition for which the prize is a crown, information technology is enough to say "For he has been victor in the Olympic games," without calculation "And in the Olympic games the prize is a crown," a fact which everybody knows.

At that place are few facts of the "necessary" type that tin can form the basis of rhetorical syllogisms. Near of the things about which nosotros make decisions, and into which therefore we ask, present united states with alternative possibilities. For information technology is about our deportment that we deliberate and inquire, and all our deportment accept a contingent graphic symbol; hardly any of them are determined by necessity. Again, conclusions that state what is just usual or possible must exist drawn from premisses that do the aforementioned, just as 'necessary' conclusions must be drawn from "necessary" premisses; this as well is clear to united states from the Analytics . It is evident, therefore, that the propositions forming the basis of enthymemes, though some of them may be "necessary," volition most of them be only ordinarily true. Now the materials of enthymemes are Probabilities and Signs, which nosotros tin run across must correspond respectively with the propositions that are generally and those that are necessarily true. A Probability is a thing that usually happens; non, all the same, equally some definitions would suggest, anything whatever that usually happens, merely but if it belongs to the class of the "contingent" or "variable." Information technology bears the same relation to that in respect of which information technology is probable as the universal bears to the item. [1357b] Of Signs, ane kind bears the aforementioned relation to the argument information technology supports every bit the particular bears to the universal, the other the same equally the universal bears to the particular. The infallible kind is a "complete proof" (tekmerhiou); the fallible kind has no specific name. Past infallible signs I hateful those on which syllogisms proper may be based: and this shows us why this kind of Sign is called "complete proof": when people call back that what they take said cannot be refuted, they then retrieve that they are bringing forwards a "complete proof," meaning that the matter has now been demonstrated and completed (peperhasmeuou ); for the give-and-take perhas has the same meaning (of "end" or "purlieus") every bit the word tekmarh in the ancient tongue. Now the ane kind of Sign (that which bears to the proffer it supports the relation of particular to universal) may be illustrated thus. Suppose it were said, "The fact that Socrates was wise and just is a sign that the wise are just." Here we certainly have a Sign; but even though the proposition exist truthful, the argument is refutable, since information technology does not grade a syllogism. Suppose, on the other hand, it were said, "The fact that he has a fever is a sign that he is ill," or, "The fact that she is giving milk is a sign that she has lately borne a kid." Here we have the infallible kind of Sign, the only kind that constitutes a consummate proof, since it is the only kind that, if the item statement is true, is irrefutable. The other kind of Sign, that which bears to the proposition information technology supports the relation of universal to particular, might be illustrated by proverb, "The fact that he breathes fast is a sign that he has a fever." This argument also is refutable, even if the statement about the fast animate be true, since a human being may breathe hard without having a fever.

It has, then, been stated to a higher place what is the nature of a Probability, of a Sign, and of a complete proof, and what are the differences between them. In the Analytics a more explicit description has been given of these points; it is there shown why some of these reasonings can be put into syllogisms and some cannot.

The "example" has already been described equally ane kind of induction; and the special nature of the bailiwick-matter that distinguishes it from the other kinds has also been stated above. Its relation to the suggestion it supports is non that of part to whole, nor whole to part, nor whole to whole, but of part to part, or like to like. When two statements are of the same gild, but one is more than familiar than the other, the former is an "example." The statement may, for example, be that Dionysius, in asking every bit he does for a bodyguard, is scheming to brand himself a despot. For in the past Peisistratus kept asking for a bodyguard in order to bear out such a scheme, and did make himself a autocrat as soon equally he got it; and so did Theagenes at Megara; and in the same style all other instances known to the speaker are fabricated into examples, in club to show what is not yet known, that Dionysius has the same purpose in making the same request: all these being instances of the one full general principle, that a man who asks for a bodyguard is scheming to brand himself a despot. [1358a] We have now described the sources of those means of persuasion which are popularly supposed to exist demonstrative.

At that place is an important stardom between 2 sorts of enthymemes that has been wholly overlooked by almost everybody -- one that also subsists between the syllogisms treated of in dialectic. One sort of enthymeme really belongs to rhetoric, as one sort of syllogism really belongs to dialectic; but the other sort really belongs to other arts and faculties, whether to those we already exercise or to those we have not yet acquired. Missing this stardom, people fail to notice that the more correctly they handle their item bailiwick the further they are getting away from pure rhetoric or dialectic. This statement will exist clearer if expressed more fully. I mean that the proper subjects of dialectical and rhetorical syllogisms are the things with which we say the regular or universal Lines of Argument are concerned, that is to say those lines of argument that employ equally to questions of right behave, natural science, politics, and many other things that have null to practice with one another. Take, for instance, the line of argument concerned with 'the more or less'. On this line of argument information technology is equally easy to base of operations a syllogism or enthymeme well-nigh any of what withal are essentially asunder subjects -- right comport, natural science, or annihilation else any. But there are also those special Lines of Argument which are based on such propositions equally apply only to particular groups or classes of things. Thus there are propositions about natural science on which information technology is impossible to base whatsoever enthymeme or syllogism about ideals, and other propositions about ethics on which zip tin can be based nigh natural science. The same principle applies throughout. The general Lines of Argument have no special field of study-matter, and therefore will not increase our understanding of whatsoever item class of things. On the other mitt, the better the selection one makes of propositions suitable for special Lines of Argument, the nearer one comes, unconsciously, to setting upward a scientific discipline that is distinct from dialectic and rhetoric. 1 may succeed in stating the required principles, simply i's science will be no longer dialectic or rhetoric, but the science to which the principles thus discovered vest. Most enthymemes are in fact based upon these particular or special Lines of Statement; insufficiently few on the common or general kind. As in the Topics , therefore, so in this work, nosotros must distinguish, in dealing with enthymemes, the special and the general Lines of Statement on which they are to exist founded. By special Lines of Statement I mean the propositions peculiar to each several grade of things, by general those common to all classes akin. We may begin with the special Lines of Argument. But, get-go of all, permit us allocate rhetoric into its varieties. Having distinguished these nosotros may deal with them one by one, and try to discover the elements of which each is composed, and the propositions each must employ.

raywhatefteld1979.blogspot.com

Source: https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/stasis/2017/honeycutt/aristotle/rhet1-2.html

Share this post