Lopes !

Stevan Lopes
Jonathan Stone
WRTG 3860
6 February 2017

The Biased Philosophers:

An Analysis of Aristotle and Platos Ideologies and Perception of Rhetoric

Aristotle and Plato were both considered some of the greatest philosophers of ancient

Greece, and arguably of all time. What sets these two apart from others is their analysis of

rhetoric. Inspecting their work, one begins to notice distinct ideologies or belief systems that

influence their perception of rhetoric. This essay is going to examine both of these authors

ideologies and their connection to rhetoric, as well as compare similarities and differences of

both philosophers views.

Regarded as the Father of Nicomachean (Virtue) Ethics and credited with advancing

western philosophy, Aristotle was one of historys greatest thinkers. What led him to develop

Virtue Ethics is his belief that there was a clear distinction between good and bad. Aristotle wrote

about these two concepts in his book On Rhetoric when he stated, Let a good be [defined as]

whatever is chosen for itself and that for the sake of which we choose something else that

which is sought after by all things (Kennedy, 1991, p. 61). Aristotle continues on to describe

several good things that one can seek to have a virtuous life, thus the basis of Virtue Ethics. He

also describes what it means to be bad, And a thing is good when it is not in excess, but

whatever is greater than it should be is bad (Kennedy, 1991, p. 63). These examples describe

Aristotles ideology that there is a difference between what is good and bad in the world.

Everything falls into either category and in order to be a virtuous or ethical person, one should
 Lopes !2

always seek those things that are good. Aristotle uses these distinctions to describe his thoughts

on rhetoric as well. Rhetoric becomes a good virtue when it is utilized properly to advance truth

and justice. Rhetoricians can use the tools of rhetoric to advance their righteous cause and be a

shining example for others, so they can follow the path of virtue as well. There is much more to

virtue ethics than just this notion of good and bad, but for the purpose of this essay it is important

to see the ideology behind Aristotles theory and his thoughts on rhetoric.

Most of Aristotles ideologies were very optimistic. One of these optimistic beliefs was

that truth would always triumph. He wrote, Rhetoric is useful, [first] because the true and the

just are by nature stronger than their opposites, so that if judgments are not made in the right way

[the true and the just] are necessarily defeated [by their opposites] (Kennedy, 1991, p. 35). This

quote demonstrates how Aristotle held the ideology that by properly utilizing rhetoric, one would

always be able to uncover truth. The point of rhetoric was to persuade another of a specific truth

and without both components there would be no skilled orator.

This ideology contrasts sharply with Platos views on rhetoric and truth. Plato believed

that rhetoric was simply a trick or cheap tactic used by speakers to persuade someone of

something, which was not always the truth. This is found in the quote, Rhetoric is a mere

routine and trick, not an art he who would be a skillful rhetorician has; no need of truth-for

that in courts of law men literally care nothing about truth, but only about conviction. (Plato,

2015, pp. 23 & 35). Platos ideology dictated that rhetoric is not based on truth and knowledge, it

is based on deception and showmanship. This goes to show Platos dissatisfaction with rhetoric

as a whole as well as his own personal ideologies about truth and justice.
 Lopes !3

Platos views on truth were not his only ideologies. He held the ideology that to be a good

speaker, one must be born with a certain set of skills and build upon those skills to become an

even better orator. Plato wrote, The perfection which is required of the finished orator is, or

rather must be, like the perfection of anything else; partly given by nature, but may also be

assisted by art. If you have a natural power and add to it knowledge and practice, you will be a

distinguished speaker (Plato, 2015, p. 32). This can help explain Platos distrust in rhetoric.

Since he believes that one must have a natural born talent for speaking, then rhetoric is a cheap

ploy used by others to appear like a distinguished speaker. But for Plato, a speaker has no need

for rhetoric, simply because with the skills and knowledge he was born with, rhetoric becomes

obsolete. This ideology of natural born orator is very interesting and helps to explain many of

Platos criticisms and thoughts on writing and rhetoric.

Aristotles thoughts on what makes a good speaker was very different from Platos.

Aristotle believed in the concept that he called Dynamis. This was the idea that anyone is

capable of performing rhetoric, and when the occasion calls for it, they are able to be a good

speaker. This is seen in the quote, In his philosophical writing dynamis is the regular word for

potentiality in matter or form that is actualized by an efficient cause (Kennedy, 1991, p.

37). Platos ideologies regarding speech and talent differ greatly from that of Aristotles who

believes anyone can become virtuous and a good speaker through hard work and acquisition of

good things, and because of the concept of Dynamis. While Plato disapproved whole heartedly

with rhetoric, Aristotle believed that rhetoric was a great tool that could be utilized by anyone.

Aristotle certainly had a more grounded utilitarian concept of speech, while Plato was much

more elitist.
 Lopes !4

These two differing ideologies and views helped construct vastly different takes on

rhetoric and writing, but with these opposing thoughts, we have gained such a deeper

understanding of these concepts. Thanks to Aristotle and Plato we are able to better understand

what makes writing and speaking so impactful and we can take their considerations and

ideologies into thought and construct our own ideas of what we believe makes a better speaker.

Although they may have vastly different ideologies, we can thanks these two brilliant minds for

advancing what we know today as rhetoric.

 Lopes !5

References

Kennedy, G. A. (1991). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford University Press.

Plato. (2015). Phaedrus. (Jowett, J., Translation). http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html

(original work written in 360 B.C.E.)