Rhetoric in the Real World

Davison, Timothy J

ERH-201WX-03

MAJ Garriott

HR: Sources, easybib for works cited

For over two millennia rhetoric has been one of the most debated topics by scholars and there is still disagreement on what rhetoric truly is. Rhetoric, which is the ability to see multiple sides of an argument and pick the best one, has constantly changed over 2500 years. In today’s age, with the advancements in technology, we see an entirely different form of rhetoric. A form of rhetoric that is more persuasive than ever and that can easily lead people to false truths. The rhetoric we see today, particularly in social media and politics, can easily lead people to believe false claims. Does this mean that the rhetoric we see today is similar to Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric? Or maybe rhetoric has completely changed from the time of Aristotle and Plato.

A lot of the rhetoric that is used today appears in social media. This causes rhetoric to be much more influential because almost everyone is able to access it at almost any given second. Furthermore, the rhetoric used in social media is short and to the point rather than lengthy and elegant. Mallory Peterson, a scholar from Penn State, states “For instance, in order to catch a viewer’s attention, a Facebook status must be short, to the point, and intensely interesting.” Therefore, this form of rhetoric would be far less elegant than it was during the time of Sophists. However, this can make it much more persuasive because it is almost as if someone is stating a fact. This can lead people to false claims because people, especially those that do not have much knowledge on a particular issue, will see this as a fact.

Contrary to what Peterson says, a Facebook status can be lengthy, elegant and interesting. This reason for this is because users that are creating a post have the ability to think about what they want to say and the time to revise their post. This is a privilege compared to speaking in public, in which you do not have the ability to delete your words and revise what you have said. For some forms of social media, such as twitter, posts must be direct because there is a character limit for how long a post can be. However, for applications like Facebook, there are no character limits and posts can be long and elegant.

The form of rhetoric that we see in social media can be very similar to what Aristotle says about rhetoric. Aristotle believes that rhetoric is based off of common belief, or shared values and ideals in the case of politics. He states this in his On Rhetoric saying, “rather, it is necessary or pisteis and speeches to be formed on the basis of common [beliefs].” (Aristotle 35). However, the rhetoric we see in social media has would have one big flaw in the eyes of Aristotle. He believes that rhetoric should be based off common belief and a certain amount of knowledge on a particular subject. Today, especially in the world of politics, we see either people creating a Facebook post or tweet about something that they truly do not know much about or people believing a post that was written by someone with little to no knowledge on a subject.

What makes this matter even worse are the algorithms popular social media sites use to determine what they think a user wants to see on their page. These sites will even display posts on a users page that are not even valid sources. According to Colby Itkowitz, a writer for the Washington Post, Facebook is even one of these sites, which is a website that has the potential to wrongly influence 1.79 billion active users. (statista). Itkowitz says “Because Facebook’s algorithm is designed to determine what its individual users want to see, people often see only that which validates their existing beliefs regardless of whether the information being shared is true.” (Itkowitz).

This creates an entirely new issue of rhetoric leading people to believe false claims. Since websites and applications like Facebook only display what they think a user wants to see, they limit the rhetoric someone is able to access, which forces them to believe one side of an argument. This limits the ability of an individual to see multiple sides of an argument and pick the best means because people are only seeing one side. This causes the rhetoric that is seen on social media to become even more persuasive because users take what is being said as facts.

Today we are able to see individuals, such as Paul Horner, that we can call a modern day Gorgias. Gorgias, one of the original and most influential Sophists, compares his use of rhetoric to magic because he is able to get people to believe anything, regardless of if it is true. We are able to see this in his Encomium of Helen, as he is able to transform the public opinion of Helen from a villain to a victim with the use of his words. Paul Horner, a popular creator of fake-news, in his interview with the Washington Post says, “I think Trump is in the White House because of me. His followers don’t fact-check anything – they’ll post everything, believe anything.” (Itkowitz).

It is safe to say that rhetoric today is the art of persuading others to believe what you either believe or want others to believe. It does not have much to do with leading others to the truth like Plato says. It is even different than what Aristotle says because people are able to use rhetoric to persuade others without having any knowledge on what they are arguing. Social media sites, such as Facebook, further promote the art of persuasion because they only post what they want users to see and will allow anything to be posted, regardless of its credibility. Although this rhetoric can lead people to believe false claims, people need to be more skeptical and not believe everything that they see. This only makes this rhetoric even worse.

For over 2500 years rhetoric has changed with the cultures and societies that use it. Today, particularly in social media applications, we see how easy it is to persuade others. As a civilization, we should listen to what Aristotle says and we should neither use nor believe this rhetoric without having a solid foundation of knowledge about a particular issue first. This would stop the endless cycle of people posting and sharing particular beliefs that are far from the truth. We are experiencing what Plato warned us about rhetoric and we need to fix it. Overall, our society needs become more educated on issues and not believe what they see.

Works Cited

Aristotle, and George A. Kennedy. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford UP, 1991. Print.

Facebook. “Number of Monthly Active Facebook Users Worldwide as of 3rd Quarter 2016 (in Millions).” Statista – The Statistics Portal. Statista. November 2016. Web. 11 Dec 2016. <https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/>

Gorgias, and Douglas M. MacDowell. Encomium of Helen. Bristol: Bristol Classical P., 1982. Print.

Herrick, James A. The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 05th ed. Boston: Allyn and Beacon, 2005. Print.

Itkowitz, Colby. “Fake News on Facebook Is a Real Problem. These College Students Came up with a Fix in 36 Hours.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 18 Nov. 2016. Web. 09 Dec. 2016.

Naghibi, Nima. “Diasporic Disclosures: Social Networking, Neda, and the 2009 Iranian Presidential Elections.” Biography, vol. 34, no. 1, 2011, pp. 55-69. www.jstor.org/stable/23541178.

Peterson, Mallory. “Rhetoric in Social Media.” The Peterson Perspective. N.p., 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 07 Dec. 2016.

Plato, and Benjamin Jowett. Gorigas, New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1871. Print

Ross, Janell. “Just How Unique Is the Political Rhetoric of the Donald Trump Era?” The Washington Post. WP Company, 07 Dec. 2015. Web. 09 Dec. 2016.

Throughout the course of the semester, we have seen many different definitions of rhetoric and how it has impacted our daily lives for over 2500 years. The most important takeaway I have about rhetoric is that it has become less truthful over time as it is used in more social-political settings. Rhetoric has the ability to persuade anyone if used correctly. This can be both a positive and negative impact of rhetoric as it can lead people to either a more clear understanding of the truth or to a false claim. Furthermore, I believe that rhetoric has become less and less truthful in social-political settings because people see the power it has to influence others.

Plato had warned us long ago that rhetoric would lead people to believe false claims and that it is only beneficial if it is used to bring us to a 100% truth. We can see early examples of rhetoric being used to influence anyone in Gorgias’ Encomium of Helen, in which her transforms the public opinion of Helen from a villain to a victim. In this case, Gorgias was proving a point that he was able to influence anyone with the ‘magic’ of rhetoric. This example, and others alike, could have shown people that they too can use rhetoric to persuade others.

Rhetoric began to become less truthful as it is used in more social-political settings, such as the ancient Athenian Democracy. In this setting we see rhetoric used, by members of the government, to persuade others to believe a certain claim regardless of if it is true or proven. We can see how rhetoric becomes less truthful during this time period because of how Aristotle defines how rhetoric should be used. Aristotle, in his On Rhetoric, says that the use of rhetoric should be based off of a certain knowledge of a subject. Furthermore, he states that there is no such thing as a complete truth and that we can only come so close to the truth. This led people to think that their opinion was truthful in nature because there was no such thing as a complete truth and that they were truthful if their opinion or idea was close to the truth. This would eventually pave the way for the use of rhetoric to intentionally lead others to false claims.

Today we see rhetoric almost everywhere as we are all connected through social media. Much of the rhetoric used today in social media is neither 100% truthful nor based off of a strong foundation of knowledge in a certain field. For example, there are many fake and biased news sources on websites like Facebook that create posts to persuade people to believe in what they do. Furthermore, many users that have personal accounts publish their own thoughts in order to persuade their friends to believe in what they do. Many of these users that post things on their personal accounts do not have a great foundation of knowledge in these subjects, and they are simply stating their opinion as a fact. If you were to log on to your Facebook page during election season, you would see many of your friends or acquaintances posting their opinion, but stating it as if it were a fact! Crazy enough, many people believe them because of either how much attention the post has gotten or because the post was stated as a fact. As a society, we are not skeptical enough and need to question the things that are states (practice disoi logoi).

On the other hand, however, there are many people that use social media to spread their knowledge and teach people. Since almost everyone in our Western civilization is connected through more than one means of social media, it is a great way for people to share what they know. People can use this to actually bring a lot of attention to huge issues that the mainstream media is not reporting. Overall, I believe that rhetoric is less truthful than it should be and that we should listen to what Aristotle tells us. We should only use rhetoric to persuade when we have a substantial amount of knowledge on a certain issue.

A concern that I have now about rhetoric is whether or not it will become even less truthful than it is now. Over the past 2500 years we have seen the element of truth decline in rhetoric. Although rhetoric in social media can be used beneficially, there have been more and more instances of it being used maliciously. Unless we, as a culture, become more skeptical and question the rhetoric that we see every day the rhetoric of the future does not look very good for bringing out the truth.

For over two millennia rhetoric has been one of the most debated topics by scholars and there is still disagreement on what rhetoric truly is. Rhetoric, which is the ability to see multiple sides of an argument and pick the best one, has constantly changed over 2500 years. In today’s age, with the advancements in technology, we see an entirely different form of rhetoric. A form of rhetoric that is more persuasive than ever and that can lead people to false truths. The rhetoric we see today, particularly in social media and politics, is based more off of subjective truths rather than objective truths. Does this mean that the rhetoric we see today is similar to Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric? Or maybe rhetoric has completely changed from the time of Aristotle and Plato.

Most of the rhetoric that is currently being used today is used in social media. This causes rhetoric to be much more influential because almost everyone is able to access it at almost any given second. Furthermore, the rhetoric used in social media is short and to the point. Mallory Peterson, a scholar from Penn State, states “For instance, in order to catch a viewer’s attention, a Facebook status must be short, to the point, and intensely interesting. “ Therefore, this rhetoric would be less elegant to either hear or read but would be more direct. This can be very persuasive and can lead people to false claims because people, especially those that do not have much knowledge on a particular issue, will take this as a fact and believe it.

A common occurrence of this issue can be seen when politicians use social media. If you log on to twitter, Facebook, or any other social media platform you will most likely see politicians campaigning or stating a claim that, some of the time, is not completely true or proven. Most of the time politicians say what they think is right and say that what their opposition believes in is incorrect. Therefore, we are able to come to the claim that political rhetoric is based off of subjective truths. Since political rhetoric is based off of subjective truths, does this mean that there is no such thing as a complete truth as defined by Plato? As we all know, there are many ways to do things and people either think they are correct or incorrect based off of their opinions. For example, a democrat would not think a republicans tax plan is correct, but a republican would most likely think so.

If there is no such thing as a 100% truth, are we able to say that the rhetoric used today is similar to the rhetoric Aristotle defined. Aristotle believes that rhetoric is based off of common belief, or shared values and ideals in the case of politics. He states this in his On Rhetoric saying, “rather, it is necessary or pisteis and speeches to be formed on the basis of common [beliefs].” (Aristotle 35).

1. What is the distinct difference between rhetoric and dialectic. Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric is very similar to the how we defined dialectic.
2. How does Epideictic Oratory relate to our definition of rhetoric. Since it is considered ceremonial, how does one come up with persuasive arguments? Is it maybe along the lines of public praise or blame of a person at a funeral or at a speech.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+memes&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz7d3UvMHPAhUDTo8KHdlCBlkQ_AUICCgB&biw=1279&bih=612#imgrc=9pxFTowQF2EpoM%3A

I believe that natural talent was such a popular discussion during the Classical Period because it was perceived that people were born into a certain social class or born with a certain amount of virtue. Therefore many people in the Classical Period would have believed that people are born with certain talents and or skills rather than learning/acquiring  them. I think that we find discussions of natural talent more in athletics rather than academics today because of the study of genetics. Some people have a natural gift or ability in a certain sport or physical event and that is easy to see because everyone else is able to see them compete in this sport or activity. I believe that people are born with the same scholarly talents but it is harder to see because we cannot see what people are thinking.

Plato is concerned with the difference between mere belief and true knowledge because he believes that the truth can often be persuaded, and sometimes cause an injustice. He believes that rhetoric can be used to persuade people to believe something, which may or may not be completely true, by using words. This is similar to how Gorgias thought that rhetoric was like magic and that he was able to persuade people by using it. This lead Plato to believe that rhetoric was like flattery because it was good in the short-term, but not in the long-term. He believed that rhetoric was not a true art and did not come from a true knowledge or skillset.

In The Gorgias, rhetoric is described as flattery. This is because it looks good, sounds good, etc. but does not improve neither your the body nor soul. He defines rhetoric as only good in the short-term. Furthermore, rhetoric is concerned with discourse. Rhetoric is concerned with making men able to speak and understand what they are speaking. Plato describes rhetoric to be useless, but he would not have been able to write The Gorgias and get his point across without using rhetoric. Rhetoric studies the way in which we use words and display a point.

Gorgias uses rhetoric, through his speaking, in the art of persuasion. This definition and purpose of rhetoric is similar to that of the other sophist’s definition because it is similar to Disoi Logoi. Disoi Logoi is the method of creating contradictory arguments, therefore by using persuasion one may be able to argue one side of an argument more effectively. My definition of rhetoric is starting to grow from how we describe things to how we can describe arguments and create multiple arguments to support a claim. Therefore, my growing definition of rhetoric is becoming similar to the definition and purpose of rhetoric used by Gorgias.

In his Encomium, Gorgias is trying to show the usefulness of using rhetoric to generate multiple viewpoints and make multiple claims/arguments about a specific case. The way the Encomium is structures is also a good teaching tool for how to create arguments on a case. It is structured by using an opening statement, then listing the facts, creating arguments and support and a conclusion. This structure can teach students the process for creating multiple arguments about a specific case.