The first line in Aristotle’s Rhetoric, “Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic”, began my frustration.  Having previously read Plato’s Grogias, wherein Socrates, in a very nonlinear, disorienting way, establishes the notion that the object of rhetoric is persuasion and belief and it is only through the Dialectic that the truth evolves.  According to Plato then, the Dialectic is a philosophical dialogue and rhetoric is a persuasive appeal.  Thus, the two occupy locations within their own, separate categories.  However, Aristotle’s claim that the two are “counterparts”, or things in close resembelance of  or complementary to one another, counters Plato’s argument.  Therefore, I was under the impression that I was dealt the task of reading another roundabout dialogue with an end result that would completely contradict all the Platonic discourse I was just beginning to wrap my head around.  Not exactly . . .

The form of Aristotle’s Rhetoric  could not have differed any more from Plato’s texts.  Although they are both discussions on rhetoric and provide advice to rhetoricians, Aristotle’s argument was linear, in which problems were identified and answers were quickly provided before moving on to a different topic.  Each chapter began with a disclosure of the topic to be covered and did not sway until it was THOROUGHLY covered.  The text read as a meticulous  instruction manual covering all aspects of mechanical hick-ups and human error.  And who doesn’t enjoy reading instruction manuals?

It is this reason that I had extreme difficult analysing Rhetoric.  Aristotle’s argument is so deeply rooted in what he calls “Phronesis”: the practical use of reason.  Thus, the author makes it extremely difficult for the reader to criticize.  Therefore, is Aristotle a great rhetorician because of his use of phronesis?

However, one aspect that I found interesting and would like to question is his statement found in Book 1, Ch 1: ” Rhetoric is useful (1) because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly”.  Aristotle seems to be saying that if you have the truth on your side, their is a natural tendency that you will prevail.  If you do not, it was your fault for wasting the truth.  Therefore, the opponentsof the truth used their rhetorical skills to manipulate the truth.  Is Aristotle saying that a function of rhetoric is one’s ability to counter those attempting to disrupt the truth?  If so, how can we see this relevant today?