Aristotle is a classical philosopher who was Plato’s student and has written on various topics such as metaphysics, Politics, rhetoric, leadership, communication and management. His works is dated in the ancient Greek city states times and is very applicable in today’s world. In his interrogation of communication, leadership and management and their definitions Aristotle core arguments focus on human nature, constitutions, rulers and subjects, perfectionism and rhetoric.
This paper looks at Aristotle’s argument on communication, leadership and management in the first part and then compare and contrast his arguments with various scholars in the second part and the last part will conclude the paper.
Aristotle looked at and defined communication as Rhetoric (Griffin 2012 PP. 289-298) rhetoric is defined as the art of discovering ways truth seem more probable to an audience that is not completely convinced through persuasion. He argued rhetoric is a counterpart of an offshoot of dialectic (one on one discussion) in search for the truth, answer general philosophical questions certainty, whilst rhetoric is one person addressing many, trying to demonstrate truth that’s already been found, or addressing specific practical question with probability. This skill according to Aristotle is vital in leadership, management as argued by sophists in the early Greek civilization who were travelling speech teachers in Athens training lawyers and politicians oratorical devices. Rhetoric is useful firstly because without rhetoric the truth can be easily be defeated in a debate for true knowledge alone may not be enough to persuade certain audiences who rely on unconstrasted opinion and feeling. Secondly rhetoric helps the speaker understand the real...
... middle of paper ...
....
CONCLUSION
In conclusion defining and explaining leadership, communication and management its theories and controversies is a monumental task but Aristotle has given insight on key issues such as human nature, ideal constitution, rulers and subjects, ethics, virtues, rhetoric and factions. In as such much Aristotle has tried to explain it, but the need to search for answers continues, and the questions continue to change too and in the process of describing the controversies and theories creates a basis for further examination and discovery. Aristotle arguments agree/disagree with some of the current theories and arguments today, but he would probably be faced with the need to reexamine some of his arguments and thinking on leadership, communication and management because research has really developed and revealed a lot of new and useful information in this field.
Of Aristotle’s three modes of rhetoric, Audre Lorde’s essay is comprised largely by logos complemented by pathos and the least by ethos. Ethos is obvious when she describes herself in terms of social groups, giving credibility to herself to justify her assertions. In her words, Lorde is a “forty-nine-year-old Black lesbian feminist socialist mother of two, including one boy, and a member of an interracial couple.” She explains at the beginning of her essay that she has been identified as an active member of these socially taboo groups and thus has the right to demand attention to her claims. Logos is seen throughout her essay, often following a bold statement. Her arguments not only consist of reasoning but also personal experiences and real-life occurrences, such as Lorde’s question of the lacking representation of poetry by Back women and the horrifying female circumcision supported by Jomo Kenyatta in Africa. Lorde’s use of logos is very effective because it gives the reader a relatable narrative to better understand her bold conclusions. The third mode of Aristotle’s rhetoric is pathos, which Lorde uses to a slightly lesser degree than logos but just as effectively. Examples of Lorde’s use of pathos are her descriptive language, metaphors and lists.
Rhetoric in the article by William Covino and David Jolliffe is explained as an art of persuasion that uses communication with a purpose or goal. To add, it is an ongoing conversation between the rhetor and the auditors. In addition to using persuasion, the observance of the audience is used as well. In the article by William Covino and David Jolliffe they talk about the four major elements of rhetoric: the rhetorical situation, the audience, the methods of persuasion, and the 5 canons. As explained in the reading the purpose of rhetorical communication is to teach, to please, and to move.
In the time of ancient Greece, there were a category of teachers called the sophists who believed that wisdom and Rhetoric could and should be used for profit and personal gain. Aristotle, a well-known teacher, disagreed with this completely and believed that while Rhetoric is persuasive, it should be used morally and with good intentions. He stressed the idea of using moral standards along with emotion, logic and truth to persuade any audience. Almost 1000 years later, Augustine took this step even further with the use of rhetoric within religion practice. He emphasized the idea that rhetoric is a means by which to promote good will and spread truth. Today, modern rhetorician Dubinsky would take this step even further, by stating that Rhetoric isn’t just a means to an end. Rhetoric improves our very lives and unites people under a common good with the proper ethics. While it is unfortunate that they are from different time periods, Aristotle, St Augustine, and Dubinsky would surely all agree that Rhetoric is a means by which regular people can be persuasive with their ideals. All while using the right morals, good intentions, and correct ethics to do so, so that any regular person can influence and change their world, from the simplest of arguments to the greatest of debates. That is why I believe we should study these famous rhetoricians, because their teachings teach us how to become better people and better writers. Aristotle, St. Augustine, and Dubinsky believed in Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, which means studying and working with your audience to persuade them in such way that you’re collaborating for the benefit of both the writer and the reader.
Aristotle believed that rhetoric is a skill habit of mind that is, in itself, morally neutral and can be used for good or ill. He believed th...
Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings.
...it is necessary to examine human virtue. Something is considered to have reason in two senses: that which has reason in itself and that which listens to reason. These two senses are the origin of the distinction between intellectual and ethical virtues, respectively. The understanding of virtue and happiness is justified in the ideal that happiness is to be found in pleasure, others that it is to be found in honor, and others that it is to be found in contemplation. Happiness is not found in living for pleasure because such a life is slavish. Nor is it found in seeking honor because honor depends not on the person but on what others think of him. In order to be successful in an organization it is key to find a balance between two extremes that is an end within itself, that’s why Aristotle strongly believes that happiness is acquired through political organization.
The movie trailer “Rio 2”, shows a great deal of pathos, ethos, and logos. These rhetorical appeals are hidden throughout the movie trailer; however, they can be recognized if paying attention to the details and montage of the video. I am attracted to this type of movies due to the positive life messages and the innocent, but funny personifications from the characters; therefore, the following rhetorical analysis will give a brief explanation of the scenes, point out the characteristics of persuasive appeals and how people can be easily persuaded by using this technique, and my own interpretation of the message presented in the trailer.
Plato and Aristotle are two rhetoricians than had a great impact on the history of rhetoric. Although they were similar in many ways, their use and definition of rhetoric were different. Plato had the more classical approach where he used rhetoric as a means of education to pass down his beliefs and practice of rhetoric to his students. He believed that it should be used to educate the masses, provoking thought, and thereby preserving that knowledge. Plato thought that rhetoric should be used to convey truth, truths already known to the audience, revealed through that dialectic critical thought. Plato also operated on absolute truths, things that are right or wrong, black or white. Aristotle was more modern in that he used rhetoric as a tool of persuasion in the polis. He thought that the main purpose of rhetoric was to persuade, provoking emotions for his audience as a tool of persuasion. Aristotle’s rhetoric was more science based, using enthymemes and syllogism to foster logical thinking. He believed that rhetoric was a means of discovering truth. His rhetoric was highly deliberative since he used it mainly for persuasion. I will discuss their differences in more depth in the following essay.
In Politics Aristotle lays out his ideal form of Government. It contains thought provoking discussions on the role of human nature in politics, the relation of the individual to the state, the place of morality in politics, the theory of political justice, the rule of law, the analysis and evaluation of constitutions, the relevance of ideals to practical politics, the causes and cures of political change and revolution, and the importance of a morally educated citizenry. He stressed that the ideal citizen and ruler must possess certain virtues, such as wisdom, temperance and courage. And the work as a whole echoes Aristotle's dominant theme of moderation. Politics is an excellent historical source because of the close tie Aristotle had to the everyday business of government in Athens.
Without all three of Aristotle's rhetorical appeals an argument or advertisement cannot fully be effective. The rhetorical appeals is a tool of persuasion, but ------ did not use all her tools. Therefore, she did not give an effective argument. There is a large amount of pathos, some ethos, but there are no logos presented in her argument. To improve her argument and make it effective ------ must build on ethos and logos. Ethos was not prevalent in ---- argument she did not show that she could be trustworthy, she demonstrated signs of paranoia the opposite of what ethos represents. A good representation of ethos is to demonstrate to the audience that the author is trustworthy and established, but being a woman from the west is not enough to
“On leadership” was written by John W. Gardner (The Free Press, New York, 1990). He used seventeen chapters to explain and describe essential components for the leadership should be in a successful organization. This book not only has significant influence now, but also for the future. Below are my understanding about this book, which was divided into two parts. For the first part, I will pick up some perspectives which influence me most from this book. For the second part, which is my comments and critique about this book.
Rhetoric, the art of speaking, is vital in everyday life. Whether it is to convince others of one’s worth as Sojourner Truth does in, “Ain’t I a Woman” or to pledge to a larger audience like Martin Luther King Junior in his “I Have a Dream” speech, rhetoric plays a significant role because it is the key that unlocks the door to self-expression. Without it, nobody would be able to convey his/her message or to get any thoughts across. A silent world, lacking communication, would therefore emerge. Trust would not be present as there would not be any words for someone to convince their beloved ones of his/her sincerity. Proper diction and syntax must be employed in order for one to effectively get others to share his/her beliefs, or at least to respect them.
“Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (Rost, 1931). But in today’s time, the styles of leadership are changed every time a new technology is invented or discovered so there is lack of persistency. The only thing which manages to stay constant is the principles of carrying out business activities. There are philosophies and ideologies on leadership which can be used in any time period as they are mostly a reflection of the principles of leadership. Theorists and authors like Hobbes (1679), Lewin (1947) and Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), in their time have produced enough material which can be put into use by modern day leaders and managers. Philosophers like Aristotle, who was known to be one of the most business-oriented and practical philosopher of his time, his work is still used by businesses today because of their relevance as he is interested in defining principles in terms of the ethics of leadership (Santa Clara University). In the essay I have tried to show how leadership has adapted to the changes around them and compared to the past and what circumstances caused need to change it. As a layman, anyone would think that the principles centuries ago will be very different to what we follow now but after studying on Hobbes, Lewin and Aristotle it has made a big impact on my way of thinking because the work produced by them still has more relevance compared to some of the work produced now. I have tried to explain the evolvement of leadership through three aspects which are psychology, sociology and philosophy.
Both Plato and Aristotle are among the most influential philosophers in the history. Socrates was another famous philosopher who greatly influenced Plato. Plato was the pupil of Socrates and later Plato became the teacher of Aristotle. Although Aristotle followed his teachings for a long time, he found many questionable facts in his teachings and later on became a great critic of Plato’s teachings. Since Aristotle found faults in Plato, hence their work is easily comparable as it is based on the common aspects of philosophy. In this paper I will first explain some similarities and then I shall explain the differences between the theories of Plato and Aristotle.
What is leadership, and how do we attain the best and most effective leaders? These are questions that are as old as civilization itself. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (as cited in Wren, 1995, p. 50). Since the study of history in the West is commonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle.