Aristotle
**I just copied my answers from the Google Docs just so it is here as well.
Marian Russell’s Questions (17-20)
Comment on the following: "The more speakers fasten upon the subject matter in its proper sense, the more they depart from rhetoric and dialectic" (44-45).
(Marian Russell) I believe one way to approach this comment is to first think of what DOES compose rhetoric or dialectic, based on Aristotle’s beliefs. Aristotle does comment that, “It is the same with Dialectic, which does not draw conclusions from any random premises—for even madmen have some fancies—but it takes its material from subjects which demand reasoned discussion, as Rhetoric does from those which are common subjects of deliberation” [2:11]. Therefore, Aristotle does recognize that these works are indeed based off of facts and thoughtful discussions that have occurred throughout the community/society, BUT Aristotle also seems to place a higher value on the quality of the speech itself and how the speaker utilizes rhetorical appeals, not the audience’s preconceived notion of the speaker or the subject. Therefore, if it is spoken too much without the art of persuasiveness, then it is no longer a rhetoric, but more a part of the exact sciences Aristotle refers to. However, rhetoric can still be found in many scientific subjects, “which may be applied alike to Law, Physics, Politics, and many other sciences” [chapter 2:21], but it is the style of the argument itself that helps to represent rhetoric or dialectic, not necessarily the subject/topic.
What is the difference between idia and koinon?
(Marian Russell) I don’t know if it is the translation I am reading, but neither of these
words are specifically used in my version (I am reading the free version: Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 22, translated by J. H. Freese. Aristotle. Cambridge and London. Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd. 1926.). I decided to do my own research and found that idia in Greek means “private, personal of oneself, reserved” while koinon means “common thing”. One article I found really helpful in elaborating on their differences that could be of use to the rest of the class is Brad Mcadon’s article, “Probabilities, Signs, Necessary Signs, Idia, and Topoi: The Confusing Discussion of Materials for Enthymemes in the ‘Rhetoric’”. Mcadon explains that idia are the specifics that comprise the enthymemes and they are “which are called particular and special, fewer from those that are common or universal” [Aristotle, chapter 2: 22]. However, the koinon, or koinois, are the part of enthymemes that are based off of common principles, and they are more prevalent in rhetoric. Mcadon makes the interesting note from “The Posterior Analytics” that, “the idia [of each field] are simply assumed or accepted, but are proved from the common [principles] (koinos)” (233). The point here is that idia are created from the common beliefs/principles/koinon, because without the normal, then there is no base to measure from what is specific or even abnormal. In general, they are both the sources of propositions, but in different ways.
Reference
McAdon, Brad. “Probabilities, Signs, Necessary Signs, Idia, and Topoi: The Confusing
Discussion of Materials for Enthymemes in the ‘Rhetoric.’” Philosophy & Rhetoric,
vol. 36, no. 3, 2003, pp. 223–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40238152. Accessed 23 Sept. 2023.
Differentiate among the three types of rhetoric as regards time, audience, and primary ends. Why does Aristotle say that any speaker must have propositions about the possible and the impossible, the true and the false, the important and the irrelevant, the advantageous, the just, the honorable and their opposites?
(Marian Russell) The three types of rhetoric are defined by Aristotle as deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. Deliberative rhetorics are meant to exhort or to dissuade you from an action and this is typically seen in private discussions or to assemblies, while forensics are accusatory or defensive and are done by litigants to a judge/jury, and epideictic rhetorics are to blame or praise a subject. The audience is typically a judge of some kind, or a mere spectator. Deliberative rhetoric advises on the future for things to come, forensics on “the past, for it is always in reference to things done that one party accuses and the other defends” [chapter 3:4], and epideictic is focused on the present on things known to blame or praise. The special ends of these three types differs based on their purpose, with deliberative ending on “the expedient or harmful; for he who exhorts recommends a course of action as better, and he who dissuades advises against it as worse; all other considerations, such as justice and injustice, honor and disgrace, are included as accessory in reference to this” [chapter 3:5]. The forensic focused rhetoric is meant to end on the just or unjust, and any other proofs can be used as an accessory, and the epideictic is to find something/someone honorable or disgraceful. It is important that a rhetorician using any of these arguments has a grasp on the impossible and possible, because if something is impossible then, “can neither have been done nor will be done, but only what is possible, and since what has not taken place nor will take place can neither have been done nor will be done” [chapter 3: 7], and thus, the impossible cannot be considered in a reasonable argument for a defense or support, since it is IMPOSSIBLE. Since many of these arguments will be based on decisions between good and bad, just and unjust, and between honorable and dishonorable, the orator must understand the magnitude and have a scale for each of these propositions. For instance, there are greater evils than others like murder, and there are actions that are more honorable than others like serving your country. I believe a stronger argument would be built if the orator adhered to more commonly held beliefs on each of these topics, since it will be easier to bring your audience to agreement on your topic. Thus, you will ultimately be more persuasive if you have a grasp on what your topic/action/event falls on each of these scales in your community. However, one cannot be too exact on their definitions, according to Aristotle, as “there is no need at present to endeavor to enumerate with scrupulous exactness or to classify those subjects which men are wont to discuss, or to define them as far as possible with strict accuracy, since this is not the function of the rhetorical art but of one that is more intelligent and exact” [chapter 4:4]. Thus, you must not lose the art of rhetoric in too many specifics, since that defeats the purpose of the beautifully crafted argument.
Why also must all speakers be able to create comparisons and contrasts.?
[Marian Russell] Amplification is one form of compare and contrast that speakers can
utilize, and Aristotle describes how this is a good tool for epideictic speakers because itm
can bolster efforts to praise. A speaker must prove that she/he is a woman/man of greater accomplishments and superiority, as Aristotle states, “[t]hat is why, if you cannot compare him with illustrious personages, you must compare him with ordinary persons, since superiority is thought to indicate virtue” [chapter 8:39]. This is important to establish to an audience that you are a good speaker, by displaying yourself as honorable and good. I think this plays into the rhetorical appeal of ethos, since it deals with the appeal and credibility of the speaker. Thus, it is important to use comparisons to show yourself as superior on the subject matter or in general compared to your audience. You want to make your audience trust you, but again, like I stated in a previous comment, Aristotle does NOT agree that preconceived notions of a speaker are inherently rhetorical in appeals.