Comparing Rhetoric And Aristotle's Theory Of Knowledge

374 Words1 Page

While the Sophists held relativistic views on knowledge, Plato believed not only that absolute truth existed but that we were born with that knowledge. After our emergence from the womb, we lose this connection as we become overwhelmed by earthly concerns. Our senses collect experiences that crowd our minds and obscure the Transcendent Truth. According to Plato, it is with the help of philosophers that we declutter our brains removing the extraneous and worldly to gain access to this higher truth. As such, Plato believed that we do not discover the truth but rather reveal it. The importance of rhetoric, therefore, is as a tool of inquiry (“Classical Rhetoric”, pg. 81). Plato and the Sophists believed that humans should pursue the truth and employed rhetoric in their attempts to extract the truth. However, Plato considered the Sophistic approach to be a “false rhetoric”. In his criticisms of the sophists, Plato argued that their use of pathetical and ethical …show more content…

However, unlike Plato, Aristotle did not believe we were born with this knowledge. In order to acquire knowledge, humans must engage in disciplined academic inquiry (“Classical Rhetoric”, pg. 170). Regarded as the father of science, Aristotle believed that measurement and observation were the foundations of scientific inquiry (Explorable, n.d.). While Plato believed our senses obscured the truth, Aristotle viewed them as being an important part of the discovery process. The first to teach rhetoric at Plato’s Academy, Aristotle saw it as another valuable tool in our quest for truth. He also wrote criticisms of the Sophistic approach believing that their relativistic approach to the truth was wanting. For Aristotle, rhetoric should be employed only when rigorous scientific analysis is not possible. It should be utilized to build upon existing knowledge and further develop ideas and assumptions the audience possesses (“Classical Rhetoric”, pg.

Open Document