What  would you change about your original definition on rhetoric, and why?

After spending much time discussing the works of the sophists and ancient Greek philosophers, my definition of rhetoric warrants some revision. In my post at the beginning of the year, I stated how there is no agreed upon definition of rhetoric, rather, there are some essential elements to be considered. Some key discussions we brought up in class was concerned with whether or not rhetoric required knowledge, whether it was purely eloquent use of words to persuade or was it a technical means to persuade, and whether anyone could use it or were only a certain few born with the ability to use rhetoric.

Knowing what I know now, I lean more towards Aristotle in his views on rhetoric. Rhetoric is a means to persuade, and there are techniques available to anyone. Furthermore, rhetoric requires studying those techniques in order to speak or write extemporaneously. While yes, some people seem to be better speakers naturally, that does not mean it is only allowed to be used by few people. Plato’s argument toward the sophists that they use rhetoric not for truth is a moral issue not one concerning rhetoric. Although it would require rhetoric to convince someone of which morals to value. That is because rhetoric is simply the means to persuade an audience.

My definition before did not considered the specific views of each philosopher or sophist. I did not have the background knowledge to accurately state my own opinion on rhetoric. That is why I changed from “agreed upon points”, to a more specific approach that endorses Aristotle’s view on rhetoric.

Help Received:

None

Charles Palandati