“Rhetoric is the faculty (dunamis) of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”

-Aristotle, Rhetoric

Aristotle’s definition has done more for my understanding of rhetoric than anything else I have studied thus far. Time and time again it proves itself a versatile and solid definition. I have examined it thoroughly  and written about it on several occasions. Nonetheless, my focus has almost entirely been on the persuasion aspect. In this post I would like to examine the “faculty” piece of the definition.

The term Aristotle uses for faculty is “dunamis”. According to Strong’s Concordance, this Greek term means physical power, force, might, or ability. Thus, in Aristotle’s definition we see that rhetoric as an art is the ability or power to observe the available means of persuasion. This is important because it addresses Plato’s charge that rhetoric is not a true art, “techne”, because it is not about anything. Plato believed that rhetoric was just a helpful trick found within true arts. However, in the beginning of Aristotle’s definition he states what rhetoric is concerned with, the ability to observe. From this angle, a different engine drives the same definition. Yes, persuasion is crucial to rhetoric, but it is not the root. The root of rhetoric is an ability or power to discern the available means of persuasion. This is the intellectual analysis of circumstance, audience, and purpose, in order to persuade. Thus, while persuasion is the magnificent flower of rhetoric, its roots are below the surface, analyzing and discerning the appropriate expression of ethos, pathos, and logos.