Aristotle's On Rhetoric discusses the need to argue for both sides of an argument. While this in and of itself is a practice many are acquainted with, and is certainly employed in class debates (when a person is arbitrarily assigned a position they must defend it whether they agree with it or not), he contextualizes this point in a way worth noting.
The beginning of this section in Book 1 discusses rhetoric's use in teaching. Aristotle says, "Speech based on knowledge is teaching, but teaching is impossible [with some audiences]; rather, it is necessary for pisteis and speeches [as a whole] to be formed on the basis of common [beliefs], as we said in the Topics about communication with a crowd," (34). In considering this quote I wonder what Aristotle means by "common beliefs."
Today, it is used either as justification for a particular belief (i.e. if it is common, then it is corroborated by many as fact and therefore acceptable as such) or it can mean something many people (rightly or wrongly) believe. There is a subtle difference between the two interpretations, but it is important to note because Aristotle could be calling on people to use fact or simply information many believe.
I find Aristotle's request that teachers use common beliefs when instructing an audience, along with his directive that they be able to argue for either side of an issue novel. When I think of common-day Western political debates I am frustrated by this claim, because so often the same debate happens on a topic because the same commonly-held but incorrect "facts" are used to bolster one (or both) sides of an argument. If he is calling for the reader to use facts that are commonly known (ex: the earth is round) then it seems he is calling for a higher level of debate than any recent public debate I can remember.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteI am wondering whether Aristotle is indeed asking for both sides of an issue to be argued. It seems that he is stating that in order for something to be a rhetorical situation, their must be more than one possible outcome. In contrast, Aristotle writes, "...rhetoric is useful because the true and the just are by nature stronger than their opposites" (34). Perhaps this statement might be complicating the idea of arguing both sides: if the "true" side is automatically stronger, what happens to the idea of arguing both sides? Aristotle also writes, "One should be able to argue either side of a question...not that we may actually do both (for one should not persuade what is debased)" (34). The idea of being able to persuade on either side seems to be only of use to prevent someone else from using speech unjustly.
Similarly, I don't think that Aristotle is asking teachers to instruct from common beliefs. I think that particular passage is articulating why teaching is not rhetorical: in situations where the true is known, there is no need for rhetoric, because there is one possible answer (34). Common beliefs come into play when addressing an audience where teaching is impossible.
This complex idea of "truth" in Aristotle that you have hit on is fascinating.
Rebekah
Rebekah and Katherine,
ReplyDeleteI find both your points on teaching from common knowledge in terms of rhetoric are both interesting claims. However just as Aristotle says that "rhetoric is useful (first) because the true and just are by nature stronger than their opposites…” it is also made noted that “Aristotle believed that truth was grounded in nature and capable of apprehension by reason” (34). So perhaps it’s Aristotle’s personal beliefs showing through the text when addressing teaching by common knowledge, noting the fact that the truth can always change according to reason and to mindful of the change that might occur.