Let’s Start At The Very Beginning (A Very Good Place To Start)!

Rhetoric got its start in Ancient Greece and owes its foundations to a few key people. To understand anything, it’s best to start at the very beginning and lay groundwork. You’ve probably heard certain names thrown around in your previous English classes. You may have had to know them, and some places, some dates, or some titles for a test, but nothing too extensive or in depth. You know by now, however, that they are important.

Often times, they’re talked about in conjunction with one another. It’s hard for a lot of people to place who came when and who came before whom, and who was whose teacher….

To remedy that, let's establish some time lines before delving in:

1. The Sophists (like Gorgias and Isocrates) came first
2. DURING their time, Socrates came, followed by his student Plato. Thus began Platonism.
3. Finally, Plato's student, Aristotle, came and developed his own school of thought.

Also, because this information is presented in a blog format, and because the subject matter can be confusing at times, comment with any questions, complaints, opinions...etc...and discuss among yourselves as well.

And so we begin with the Sophists….

The Sophists

The Basics
First on the floor are a group of people called the Sophists. They had a very positive view of this “rhetoric” business; they considered it to be a form of high art, and that to develop rhetorical skill was to develop virtue, and virtue was a good thing to have. The Sophists felt that it was important to cultivate good character in order to fulfill one’s civic duty and generally, be a good Greek. Despite their emphasis on “virtue,” a defining characteristic of the Sophist philosophy is the rejection of absolute Truth. For the Sophists, there wasn’t any way to know if there were hard, fast rules and morals for every given situation, and no matter what you thought, someone out there was going to see things differently. If truth existed, it wasn’t going to speak for itself, so we’d be better off denying its existence. Hence, the rhetorician’s job was to create what they called “the better illusion.” and coming to a consensus to prevent social anarchy. Rhetoric, for them, was “epistemic;” rhetoricians had the potential to sculpt reality for their listeners, to create knowledge. It was up to them to use that ability to control and positively influence society. Debate was necessary for a free and healthy state. The Sophists also emphasized kairos, or in laymen’s terms, opportune timing, making sure you’re at the right place at the right time with the right people and that you say the right things at the right time once you’re there.

The Major Players
Gorgias- Author of Encomium of Helen. Gorgias was very interested in body language and poetic devices to embellish the delivery of the speech. Rhetoric was an art after all. You’ll have to read Helen eventually, but for now, here’s a summary; Gorgias goes to great lengths to exonerate Helen of Troy from any wrongdoing in that nasty Troy fiasco (yes, the thing with the giant horse). In true Sophist fashion, he covers all the bases and lists several different possible situations and final judgments (love, fate, victimization, etc. etc. etc.)

Isocrates- Though he is often overlooked in rhetoric classes, Isocrates was actually very influential in his day and established many standards for rhetoric and education. The Sophists were very concerned with virtue, and Isocrates laid out three purposes for public speaking. Rhetoric, he said, should….

1. Heal 
2. Be used for political aims 
3. Or provide care-giving functions 

Take Away Points

The Sophists…

• They LIKED rhetoric; it was an art 
• Did NOT believe that absolute truth exists. This will be important later when we compare the different philosophies with each other 
• Were concerned with virtue and thought rhetoric would help with cultivating it 
• Believed in equality and thought that anyone can learn and practice rhetoric through debate. This is also an important point of dissent for the philosophers. 
• Very long, expansive arguments 
• Gorgias was a Sophist and he wrote the Encomium of Helen 
• So was Isocrates, and he established the three aims of rhetoric 

1. Healing 
2. Political aims 
3. Care-giving functions 

So generally, the Sophists were kind of the “do-gooders” of their time. They wanted a well-functioning society with contributing members and they thought rhetoric could persuade a society into order. Because they rejected absolute Truth, their arguments are often long winded and expansive; they had to consider every possibility and every outcome to decide which precedence was best for each situation.

Get it? Got it? Good.

Now onto Platonism…

Platonism

The Basics

Unlike the Sophists, Platonists (taking the name from Plato, and including any of his followers…assuming there were any, considering the fact that Plato was actually kind of a pompous jerk) upheld the belief that there was an absolute Truth (hence the capital T). There is a Truth that is permanent, objective, ideal, unchangeable, and in itself, persuasive, and governs all things and situations. The major figure in this movement is, of course, Plato, but his teacher Socrates is also highly influential and worth mentioning. Because Plato so adored his teacher Socrates (relationships between teachers and their apprentices were very….close in that time), the two share most ideals. In Platonism, perfect Truth does not exist in our world, but somewhere in the heavens. In this heavenly body, dubbed the noumenal world, there were perfect forms of every object. Everything in our world is a sub-par imitation. We know what and how to imitate these forms because this knowledge was engraved on our souls; it was just a matter of discovering it through philosophical dialogue…as opposed to rhetoric.

Plato believed that rhetoric, as in the art of persuasion and effective speech, was toxic to the soul. He thought it distanced people even further away from the truth. The Sophists’ “Better illusions” and use of poetic language outright disgusted Plato. He much preferred philosophical dialogue or dialectic, inquiry, and long periods of introspection. It wasn’t uncommon to see these Platonists sitting and thinking under trees or debating the meaning of life for hours on end. These activities were supposedly conducive to the acquisition of wisdom.

However, according to Socrates and Plato, not everyone could acquire this wisdom and unearth the knowledge of the soul. They privileged white, landowning males, and those they deemed the most intelligent from that class. Plato referred to himself as the “philosopher King,” charged with the daunting task of bringing the Truth to the people (which roughly translates to bugging the heck out of everyone). Platonists thought that the intellectual salvation of the world could only be achieved if every “philosopher King” bred wildly with random women to produce a super race of really smart babies so eventually, the peons would die out and the super race would repopulate the world (either that or they had really huge libidos, and this is Ancient Greece, after all….). Plato expanded on the principle of absolute Truth in The Allegory of the Cave, which we will discuss shortly.

The Major Players (err “Philosopher Kings”)

Socrates-Plato's teacher. He, like Plato, was very much obsessed with the Truth and finding it. He engaged in long periods of introspection and again, like Plato, spent much of his time pestering random passerby in an attempt to get them to see the light. Still, he greatly influenced Plato, and consequently, Greek society, and (though he would hate to admit it) the rhetorical field.

Plato (duh)- Socrates’ devoted student. Since he worshipped the ground Socrates walked on, they shared the same ideas. He condemned rhetoric fiercely and sought to discover the knowledge of the soul instead. However, not everyone could partake in this introspective mind game, only “Philosopher Kings” like himself, and whoever else he deemed worthy. He is responsible for the theory of the Forms, and the accompanying Allegory of the Cave, but that thing is such a bear, its being relegated to another blog post. I’m sure Plato would be pretty offended if it didn’t have its own blog post anyway. He also wrote other works like Republic, which you might have to read later. Godspeed.

Take Away Points

• These guys DID believe in absolute Truth. In a BIG way.
• DID NOT like rhetoric. They thought it was all sugar-coating and flowery language and ultimately, took you away from the Truth and your own soul. They much preferred “dialectic” and pondering their existence.
• Believed in the existence of the “noumenal world” where perfect Truth and perfect forms existed, and that everything here below is a cheap imitation
• But we have the knowledge engrained in our souls we just have to find it
• Unlike the Sophists, these guys were huge elitists, and thought that only some privileged people had the capacity to reason at their level.
• Plato formed the Allegory of the Cave (see next post)
• Socrates and Plato are jerks.

Don’t worry. Things are going to look a lot less far-fetched and a bit saner eventually, but not before a quick foray into the Allegory of the Cave and the theory of the forms…

The Forms and The Cave

As we’ve learned, Plato believed in something called the noumenal world. In this world, perfect forms of every earthly thing existed. See the chair you’re sitting on? It’s actually a sad imitation of a chair. In the noumenal world there is a “perfect chair.” The person who made that chair knew to make it that way because knowledge of the noumenal world is hidden in all of our souls and allow us to imitate the designs of the forms. So Plato would say there is indeed a perfect chair floating up in the sky somewhere, and a perfect horse, and a perfect dog, and a perfect blender, and a perfect everything else. Plato constructed the Allegory of the Cave to explain the concepts of the nominal world, the theory of the forms, and absolute Truth.

Plato invites the listener (who is very likely trapped against his will) to imagine a cave. There are prisoners shackled to the walls of this cave and have been for their entire lives; they know nothing but the walls of their prison (anyone else wonder who feeds these people? Because I do). They can’t even move their heads left or right and can only look straight ahead at a wall. Outside of the cave is a path that the people in the outside world often take. There is a fire behind the prisoners, so they see the shadows of the figures on the walkway on the wall in front of them. This is the only life these prisoners have ever known. This, to them, is reality.

One day, one of the prisoners escapes and runs out onto the walkway. For the first time, he sees things as they really arm. He sees light, feels the heat of the sun on his skin, and sees passerby, animals, and plants. He is amazed at this new, true reality. Ecstatic, he runs back into the cave to tell the others, but they are unmoved. He is mocked. He comes away disillusioned, disgusted by the artificial world he once knew.

This escaped prisoner is Plato, the philosopher king. The enlightened one freed from the prison of this world, one who knows the truth and must aid others in discovering it too. The cave represents our temporal world. The land outside the cave represents the noumenal world, and its inhabitants are the perfect, real forms. The shadows on the walls represent our imitations of the forms. Like the escapee, a Philosopher King can expect to be mocked and misunderstood. Very few in our world can be on such an elevated intellectual level, and not everyone can reach Plato’s idea of enlightenment; the jeering cave-dwellers represent those that cannot.

Aristotle

Rhetoric as we know it owes most of its foundations to Aristotle. Aristotle studied under Plato and greatly respected his teacher. However, he had a few notable oppositions to his master’s theories and after weathering Plato’s absolutist tirades for years, he came to his own set of conclusions. Aristotle wasn’t quite as polarized as the other philosophers. The Sophists though that truth was completely relative, not absolute and that the only thing they could do was come to a consensus and craft the “better allusion.” Plato believed in only one truth that was permanent and unchanging and unknowable to some. Aristotle believed in “probable truth,” which put him somewhere in the middle of the two other schools; truth could never really be certain, but there were things we could do to come to the best answer for any given situation. Unlike the Sophists, Plato believed that we can find probable truth and communicate it. In order to arrive at an appropriate conclusion, Aristotle encouraged the development of rhetorical skill. He, like the sophists, considered rhetoric to be an art, useful for the development of good character. He also believed in equal opportunity and opened up a school that admitted everyone who wanted to study rhetoric.

Aristotle developed several rhetorical concepts and devices to help the rhetorician come to the best answer. He liked to view the world systematically, slowly and step by step, and he liked to categorize…a lot. He split speeches into three categories- epideictic, deliberative and forensic- which we will examine later. He established three “appeals” for successful rhetoric as well, pathos (emotions), ethos (credibility, which has its own three subdivisions- sagacity, good will, and character- also to be explained), and logos (logic), which we will also examine later. Aristotle also listed several devices to improve rhetoric. All of these are quite long and drawn out individually, so we’ll flesh them out in another post.

Aristotle emphasized the relationship between the rhetor and the audience. He thought that the audience should be studied intensely and spoken to accordingly. From there, the rhetorician should decide which type of speech was appropriate for the occasion, which appeals to use, when to say what, and how to say it. He liked rhetorical devices like metaphors and similes. Word choice, rhythm, and timing were crucial. Think of it this way; if you find out you’re speaking to an audience of very conservative people, you wouldn’t use coarse language or introduce radical ideas out of the blue. Aristotle knew that, and that’s why he found it so important to know your audience

In the meantime…

Take Away Points

• Middle ground (thank goodness)
• Lots of categories…and subcategories…and systems…and subsystems
• Liked rhetoric and considered it a teachable art form
• Believed in probable truth rather than completely relative or absolute
• Believed in coming to the best answer for any situation and doing so through rhetoric
• Equality and opportunity for all aspiring rhetoricians J
• Three Appeals- pathos, ethos (with sagacity, good will, and character), logos
• Three types of speeches- epideictic, deliberative, forensic
• Know your audience!

Although Aristotle isn't as "out there" as his contemporaries, he does have a rather daunting list of concepts attached to him. Next, we will break these down, and hopefully make them more manageable.

So You Want to Write a Speech…

In order to come to the “best answer,” Aristotle believed in using a thorough systematic analysis of the issue, the argument, and the audience. This resulted in many different lists, categories, and subcategories.

First on the to-do list is to decide which type of speech best fits the situation based on its content, your audience, and your aims. From there, you will be able to structure the argument more effectively.

The Types of Speeches

Aristotle categorized speeches based on shared characteristics and goals:

1. Epideictic- ceremonial speeches to blame or praise someone/something. They deal in the present; think eulogies, best man speeches, award acceptance speeches, graduation speeches (any commencement address you will ever have to sit through…), or just complaining about something!
2. Deliberative-often political with the intent to convince. They deal with the future Think of a court case’s closing argument, presidential debates, state of the union addresses, discussions as to where you should go on the weekend…They are usually the most common
3. Forensic-legal speeches that accuse or defend justice. They deal with the past. Think stuff in the courtroom (besides closing argument, mentioned above), or sticking up for a friend when you hear a rumor about them.

Once you know what kind of speech the situation required, you can figure out how to appeal to the audience. One of the most well-known Aristotelian concepts is The Three Appeals

Ethos- appeal to credibility. When the speaker tries to build up their reputation and make themselves more believable to the audience. The speaker can appeal through…

• Sagacity-convincing the audience that they are wise/knowledgeable
• Good will- convincing the audience that they deeply care about the topic at hand
• Character-convincing the audience that they have a good track record and strong morals

Pathos-appeal to state of mind/emotions. Think puppies, babies, nostalgia, and tear-jerking stories (hence the picture at the beginning of this post). This is contingent on…

• Where the audience is
• How emotions are connected to each other
• Proximity; how close the audience member is to the situation that you’re talking about.

Logos-logical appeal. Involves two types of reasoning

• Inductive (specific to general): “this happened to one person, so it must happen to all of you!”
• Deductive (general to specific): “Most people think/feel/do this, so you must too.”

Aristotle also named the possible parts of a rhetorical address. A general speech follows this formula; you might recognize it from the structured essays you were forced to write in high school.

1. Proem- introduce the issue
2. Narrative-explain the problem and evolve the argument
3. Argument- attempt to appeal
4. Epilogue- end the speech and urge the audience to take action

Now that we’ve outlined the major schools of thought and named a few important people, we should probably find some way of getting all this information straight and easy to memorize. In doing so, it is crucial that we understand the difference and similarities between the schools to better understand the evolution of rhetoric as a discipline.

Without further ado…let’s compare!

Let's Compare!

(Click to enlarge)

While this is not an all-encompassing list of terms and concepts, it is meant to show how the three schools differed from one another. The Sophists and Aristotle shared some common ground, whereas Plato rejected most of the views of his contemporaries. Each school disagreed on the subject of T(t)ruth and each had different views about the purpose of rhetoric and how it should be done. This diagram, hopefully, draws some lines and refreshes your memory.