Blog 4 - A Little Reflection and a Little Metaphor

Fellow Classmates,

In reading Rhetoric, by Aristotle, I became acutely aware of two things: first the shift that our discourse will be taking in response to the piece, and, secondly, how truly fundamental Aristotle’s writings are to current rhetorical understanding and teaching.

So far, as a class, we’ve looked at rhetoric in terms of groups, functions, and intent: the Sophist vs. the nonSophist, profiteering vs. justice, skill building vs. knowledge building, etc. The piece missing from our discourse pie, in my opinion, is the “how” behind the method (if you are willing to concede at least for a moment that “rhetoric” is a method)----the "technique". And, to me, it is that gap that Aristotle’s Rhetoric is particularly responsive to. It is three books that collectively outline a variety of strategies and considerations, in a somewhat systematic fashion, for use in building an argument. And the real treat, in my opinion, is that these attributes (like logos, ethos, pathos, the three speech types, the four key rhetorical questions, etc.) have all survived the test of time, laying the necessary groundwork for current persuasion discourse. Overall, I see Aristotle’s work in terms of “categorization” (the appeals and the speech types) and “considerations to be mindful of” (the key questions) as shifts not only towards developing a systematic sort of approach to argumentation and means to persuasion----but, also, as giving roots toward customization of an argument to audience----not just situations or topos---as demonstrated through Artistotle's increased valuation of pathos.

Though this next thought is independent of Rhetoric, it is crucial for my enthymeme. After Aristotle, we see that Cicero picked up Aristotle’s torch and improved upon his ideas (at least in my opinion). Two notable examples are the further increase in the valuation of pathos, which was no longer locked to the introduction as Aristotle had asserted (perhaps used on as a means to prep the audience?), but now Cicero asserted that sprinkling pathos throughout the essay/speech would be a better approach (meaning it would lead to more persuasion). And, secondly, the idea of a preemptive rebuttal built on foreseeing an audience’s objections, called “counter point” in modern day writing, too, has it origins with Cicero.

So, for me, in using metaphor to articulate and summarize the “story” of “rhetorical development,” so far, I offer the following Christian-Rhetoric comparative metaphor for consideration, posed only as an academic exercise----it is not meant to offend. In the beginning there was law, which I will dub “the time of the Sophists” but, when Christ came, there was grace----and clarity. Thus, I see, as Aristotle as the Messiah of Rhetoric, with his forerunner John-the-Baptist equivalent being Plato. And Cicero is perhaps a counterpart to Paul in this metaphor, carrying the message though never having met Aristotle face to face. Thus, in extending that metaphor, again, purely for academic enjoyment, who would you argue is the false profit (the forerunner for “the beast”) and, moreover, who would be the “beast”/the “anti-Christ” in terms of rhetoric? 

Best,

Cris