Comparing Aristotle And Plato's Discussion Of Rhetoric

886 Words2 Pages

The different notions of rhetoric that Aristotle and Plato possess also create slight differences in their views on the connection between rhetoric and justice. Aristotle and Plato are similar in that they both believe the correct use of rhetoric should be in the service of a genuinely just goal. However, in demonstrating that Gorgias’ claims of rhetoric do not have substance, Plato’s Socrates concludes that rhetoric has nothing to do with justice or virtue. He then proceeds to convince Polus to admit that rhetoric is not truly useful, but dangerous. Aristotle agrees that rhetoric, like most good things, can be used to do great harm when he says, “one might confer the greatest of benefits by using these justly, and do the greatest harm by using …show more content…

If untrue and unjust prevail, it is due to the poor use of rhetoric, not the art of rhetoric itself. While Plato’s Socrates claims that all rhetoric is inherently bad and Aristotle claims that rhetoric is unjust if used wrongly, they both suggest that there should be a clear connection between rhetoric and truth and it must do justice to its origin.
In a democratic setting, the most desirable rhetoric comes from Aristotle’s point of view who gives all citizens of a democracy the right to engage in rhetorical deliberation by using the three persuasive appeals, logos, ethos, and pathos. These devices remain powerful tools in a democracy and depending on the purpose, the audience, and the time and place, a successful orator can assess the probability of convincing an audience and can mutually coordinate and interact all three appeals of persuasion. While Aristotle believes that logos should encompass philosophy and can be defined as reason itself, Plato believes that rhetoric is logos of sophistry, which is mere words, and therefore, is useless. This is because Plato does not take into account real life human experience, which suggest that we all perceive things differently. Because everyone has the opportunity to speak, deliberate and judge in a

Open Document