23rd Rhetoric and Truth

Holly Sands October, 2013

Is there a truth? Who decides what is true, from what is not? Is the truth a matter of honesty? Or is it a matter of justice? Is it based on popular belief, or explicit fact? Can there be modifications on the truth? Studying rhetoric as a theory of persuasion through the concept of truth generates many ideas. All of the questions previously stated are all matters upon which philosophers like Plato and Aristotle sought to answer in their theories of rhetoric as persuasion. Though, I believe truth is also the most problematic feature of this rhetorical theory, as Plato and Aristotles views on truth differ. Truth is so important to the study of rhetoric as a theory of persuasion because it is an end that both philosophers reach, but via completely different means. Their differing opinions on truth are a huge deal when studying rhetoric as a theory of persuasion. On that account, it is worth briefly discussing how their opinions on truth compare. Plato, or Platonic Socrates, believes that in rhetoric used for the good, there is an attainable truth. And this truth is based on verifiable knowledge, or episteme, the Greek word for knowledge or science. In other words, Plato believes that we can definitely know the truth through rhetoric. Aristotle, on the other hand, believes otherwise. He believes that a truth exists, but it is not attainable by humans through rhetoric, even when used for the good. He believes that the closest humans will ever be to the truth is what they know by probability, or by the doxa, the Greek word for common beliefs and opinions. In other words, Aristotle believes that we can only

know what is most likely true - what is probable - as the truth is not tangible. We only have access to the means of investigating what we think to be true. Therefore, interpreting rhetorical theory as persuasion through the concept of truth really depends on the individuals perspective, as both Plato and Aristotles theories delineate completely different approaches to the achieving such a truth. Platos theory is precisely morally driven, by the soul and what is good. And conversely, Aristotles theory is precisely methodically driven, by what is realistically and rationally good. Thus, this problematic distinction provides quite a broad spectrum for studying rhetoric as a theory of persuasion in light of the truth, and further, reflects rhetorical flaws in todays society. First, lets look at truth in Platos rhetorical theory. Platos explains his rhetorical theory in two works, Gorgias and Phaedrus, that have two completely separate objectives. The Gorgias is Platos most extensive condemnation of false rhetoric. And the Phaedrus displays his most complete realization of true rhetoric. (Bizzell and Herzberg 82) Additionally, Plato creates a characteristic Socrates, whose role he adopts throughout the dialogues. When studying rhetoric through truth, Plato is the philosopher to focus on as his theory singlehandedly revolves around this subject. His theory states: Rhetoric is the movement of the soul through words, on any occasion, toward the greater good. The good, as Plato states, should be the end of all our actions. (Plato, Gorgias 121) (The good refers to what is virtuous, just, and true.) He condemns the Sophists for their use of false rhetoric, because their rhetoric is not in aid of this greater good. Gorgias says, Rhetoric is a producer of persuasion for belief, not for the instruction

of right and wrong. (Plato, Gorgias 92) Here lies Platos greatest problem with the Sophists use of rhetoric; they aim to persuade solely based on the doxa, what seems to be true and common cultural beliefs. They do not persuade based on concrete knowledge, or episteme, what is true, certain and transcendent. (Bizzell and Herzberg 83) As a result, Plato calls the Sophists rhetoric, a false art; the term suggests enough in itself. The truth must be present at all times in order for rhetoric to be an art. Platonic Socrates then demonstrates his meaning more clearly in a series of analogies comparing false and true arts. (See Figure 1) Gymnastics, medicine, legislation and justice always bestow their care for the best advantage respectively of the body and soul. (Plato, Gorgias 98) By this, Socrates suggests that these arts
BODY DEVELOPMENT CURE Gymnastics Vs Cosmetics (self-adornment) Medicine Vs Cookery SOUL (politics) Legislation Vs Sophistry Justice Vs Rhetoric

Figure 1 (Plato, Gorgias 98) False arts vs True arts as it pertains to the individual.

are true arts, as they serve the greatest good they possibly can to the individual. The false arts - cosmetics, cookery, sophistry, and rhetoric - pretend to be the true arts, they care nothing for what is the best, but settles for what is most pleasant for the moment deceiving [people] into thinking they are of the highest value. (Plato, Gorgias 98) False arts are the type of rhetoric the Sophists use, and Plato thinks that it is a disgrace. (Plato, Gorgias 98) False arts are not the best or truest options for an individual. This is why Plato calls rhetoric a flattery, because for the Sophists, it is not based on TRUE knowledge (episteme) or does not lead to the greater good,

rather only a mere appearance of the good. The role of truth in rhetoric as a theory of persuasion is crucial; otherwise rhetoric is not an art, but a flattery. In Gorgias,

Platonic Socrates concludes rhetoric is to be used for one purpose, pointing to what is just. (Plato, Gorgias 138) And for Plato, what is just is what is true. The role of truth in Platos works is continued in the Phaedrus, this time directly as a true art. To reflect, Platos rhetorical theory is the movement of the soul, on any occasion, toward the good. What is good is what is just, and therefore what is true. But how does the soul fit into this theory? This transcendence of the soul is another means through which rhetoric as a theory of persuasion can be studied. Platos theory of persuasion is precisely morally driven, hence the persistent emphasis on the terms good, just and truth; Plato believes that rhetoric is used for the betterment of the soul to achieve such a truth. The relationship between the soul and the truth is best described in Platos charioteer and horses analogy. Platonic Socrates likens the human soul to a composite of three: two horses and a charioteer. The horse that stands at the right hand is guided only by the word of command and by reason. The other however is hardly obedient to whips and spurs. (Plato, Phaedrus 153) This implies that the soul has two facets: a rational, moral, and positive side; and an irrational, radical, and corrupt side. The charioteer then, acts as the driver of the human soul, he represents intellect, and reason, and is the force behind the movement of the soul to the truth. (Plato, Phaedrus 149) Through patience and reason then, the charioteer must lead the conflicting horses in one direction, and this direction is toward enlightenment. Or in other words, the human soul must guide the opposing forces of human nature

 bad and good in one direction toward the truth. This is where the idea of transcendence of the soul comes in. The soul that follows after God and obtains a view of any truths is free from harm. (Plato, Phaedrus 150) And this is Platos main objective in his rhetorical theory as persuasion. The journey corresponds with the movement of the soul through words (which occurs via dialectic), to enlightenment, or toward the good. According to Plato, we cannot know the truth without rhetoric. Having discussed truth in the mind of Plato, we will now shift to truth by way of Aristotles rhetoric as a theory of persuasion. Though significantly different from Platos opinion, it is important to recognize that Aristotle does indeed believe that a truth exists; he just believes that it is unattainable by humans. His theory states: Rhetoric is the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. (Aristotle 181) The opening sentence of Rhetoric already hints at the concept of truth. Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. (Aristotle 179) What can this mean? Dialectic is the art of discussing or investigating the truth of opinions. Opinions. Not facts or certainties. Opinions, like that of the doxa. Aristotle calls dialectic an equal with rhetoric, as they both belong to no definite subject and is concerned with everyone. (Aristotle 179) How can Aristotle call rhetoric and dialectic equals? His theory of rhetoric as persuasion and dialectic are both arts of investigating available information. He says the function of rhetoric is not simply to succeed in persuading, but rather to discover the means of coming as near as such success as the circumstances of each particular case allows. (Aristotle 181) I would argue that such success refers to the truth. I think this is a valid argument because Aristotle believes that though the truth is not concrete, coming as close as possible

to it is still rewarding, as it is all we can obtain. Like dialectic, rhetoric aims to rationalize every circumstance possible through the means of persuasion, and all that can be concluded is that which we know is most probable. Still, Aristotle holds that rhetoric is useful because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites. (Aristotle 180) Again, he is admitting that a truth exists. Lastly, Aristotle maintains, the modes of persuasion are the only true constituents of the art, as they are criteria that humans have complete control over. (Aristotle 179) Briefly, these are ethos; the personal character of the audience, pathos; putting the audience into a certain frame of mind, and logos; the proof provided by the words of the speech itself. (Aristotle 179) To conclude, the role of truth in Aristotles rhetorical theory is far less complex and central to that in Platos, but still plays a fundamental role in his rhetorical theory. After studying truth on account of Plato and Aristotles rhetorical theories as persuasion, the distinction of opinions is clear. We are now able to inquire into how this distinction of truth in their theories is problematic in todays understanding and practice of rhetoric as a theory of persuasion. Who decides what is true? Is it morals, as set forth by Plato, or is it method, as set forth by Aristotle? To what extent do agency and the good play a role in what is true in todays society? Whose theory do we live by? These are questions that form the basis of daily interactions. As previously stated, interpreting and choosing between rhetoric in light of truth really depends on the individuals perspective on truth. I think it is fair to argue that contemporarily, Platos theory is a lot more difficult to live by, as humans are innately attracted to method and attainable conclusions, as outlined by Aristotle.

Relying on morals, the greater good, and the movement of the soul, unfortunately is not embedded deeply enough in society, and therefore is not enticing enough to use. On the same token, however, Aristotles theory gives strategy to find a near-truth in every circumstance possible, but does not ensure absolute truth. Though probably more popular in society, Aristotles theory of rhetoric puts the concept of truth in the hands of listeners, and this lack of power is unfavorable. While both of these theories are so brilliant, it is clear that today, the role of truth in them is problematic. The fact that the role of truth and the process of attaining it in both theories are so different explains this. In conclusion, truth is just one subject upon which rhetoric as a theory of persuasion, by way of Plato and Aristotle, can be studied. Already in this essay, we touched on subjects such as the good, justice, agency, and myth, and they all can explain rhetoric. I think the subject of truth though is most engaging because I felt it was so crucial to both works, and so many questions can be drawn from this study, be it problematic. The distinction between Plato and Aristotles theory in light of truth, as discussed, really does create a broad spectrum to study upon. I am eager to compare the role of truth in other philosophers theories of rhetoric as persuasion.

I pledge, that I have neither given nor received unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.

Works Cited
Aristotle. "Rhetoric." Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1990. 179-236. Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1990. Plato. "Gorgias." Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1990. 87-138. Plato. "Phaedrus." Bizzell, Patricia and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1990. 138-168.