Rhetoric is an everyday tool that few ever consider. Most do not carefully
consider their ethos before a staff meeting. The concern about “the just life” is, at best,
only an implicit concern in classroom discussions across the country. For most, it is
second nature to try to ally himself or herself with a person of power in order to gain
his/her ear. Over two thousand years ago, however, rhetoric was a topic of true
importance. Philosophers considered the components and rules of the rhetorical process.
The distinct differences in ancient rhetorical thought are evident through, first, a
summary of Han Fei Tzu’s “The Difficulties of Persuasion”, and, second, a comparison
of Tzu’s ideas with those of Plato and Aristotle.
Han Fei Tzu’s “The Difficulties of Persuasion” is a cautionary tale. It warns the
reader that intelligence and strong will are not enough to successfully persuade. The goal
of the persuader is framing the necessary words in the right way so that they are palatable
to the audience. Here the audience is a tyrant. Tzu warns of mistakes that could be
made, such as talking about hidden motives or incorrectly guessing other motives. One
key is that undertakings succeed through secrecy. Hitting upon hidden plans or
uncovering true motives would be very dangerous. Secondly, extremes should be
avoided. The successful rhetorician would not be too blunt, vague, eloquent, or longwinded. Only by praising the best of the good and the admirable of the bad can you gain
favor and intimacy of the tyrant. Only then can you can say what needs to be said.
Tzu offers sensible advice about the use of rhetoric. Plato and Aristotle, however,
would not agree wholeheartedly with him. The authors differing definitions of rhetoric is
first evident in the structure and content of each written piece. At the structural level,
each of the authors employs a unique writing style that influences the reader. Tzu’s
piece is structurally sparse. There is no lengthy introduction or blueprint for the
remainder. It is as if the gravity of the subject matter has precluded him from including
literary flourish. He must get his point across without delay. Throughout the first half of
the piece, each paragraph contains a general point supported by many conclusions. Tzu
speaks of “learn[ing] how to play up the aspects that the person you are talking to is
proud of,” and follows it with specific examples of how to employ the general
knowledge. The second half of the piece is a litany of parables that expound the lessons
of the previous paragraphs. The son of Sung, Yin-Yi the cook, and Kuan Ch’issu the
official, all show the reader the benefits and perils of the rules of rhetoric.
In Gorgias, Plato also uses the style and structure of the dialogue to provide subtle
hints about the subject matter. In almost all of the dialogues, Plato uses a device known
as the elenchus to advance the arguments at issue. In this structure, Socrates asks a
question in the form of “What is ‘F’?” with “F” being whatever is to be discussed. Then
there is a proposed definition and a discussion of agreed upon facts. Eventually, the facts
contradict the proposed definition, proving it wrong. Gorgias is one of the few that does
not operate in this way. In the dialogue, Socrates is faced with a series of interlocutors,
each one more skilled than the previous one. Socrates must deal with each one, altering
the focus of the argument in order to “defeat” them. As Tzu’s urgency seems to shape his
piece, Plato’s subject matter shapes the dialogue’s structure. The dialogue utilizes
rhetorical characteristics to allow Socrates to meet the challenge of each speaker.
Another stylistic anomaly is Socrates’ use of drawn out speeches within the text. Again,
the rhetoricians seem to have rubbed off on the dialogue. A familiar structural
component evident within Gorgias is the use of logic: inductive and geometric proofs.
Although he does speak at length in some areas, Socrates relies on the simple and brief
questions that draw us to the logical conclusions.
Aristotle’s structure and style differ from both Plato’s and Tzu’s. Tzu conveys his
message by helping you determine what can go wrong through example. Plato, through
Socrates, takes the reader along on the journey of discovery, involving them in the
process by which the conclusion is reached. Aristotle provides the reader with rules and
parameters. His discussion of rhetoric reads as a primer: each premise explained, with
each component defined, and each usage considered. Unlike Tzu’s urgency, Aristotle’s
organizational zeal tells of the importance of precise formulation and calculation.
In addition to employing different structures and styles, each author
creates an individualized definition of rhetoric by characterizing different parts of
persuasion in opposing ways. Oddly, they seem to agree on the nature of persuasion.
Tzu defines the struggle of rhetoric is to “know the mind of the person one is trying to
persuade an to be able to fit one’s words to it.” He argues that, “the important thing in
persuasion it to learn how to play up the aspects that the person you are talking to is
proud of,” and to downplay the bad ones. The advice, to make sure that your words “do
nothing to rub him the wrong way,” is that given to a sycophant. Apparently in
agreement, Socrates tells Gorgias, “I call [oratory] flattery”(463b). Socrates considers
oratory a knack for “producing a certain gratification and pleasure”(462c7). Aristotle
thought rhetoric was an act of observation, “the power to observe the persuasiveness of
which any particular matter emits”(I.2). It is the deliberative argument, however, that
most closely parallels the other two pieces. The process by which one argues about what
will make an audience happy would not be complete without the use of flattery.
The second characteristic is the value of knowledge to rhetoric. Tzu would be
wary of all knowledge held by the rhetorician. He does not believe that having
knowledge, by itself, will help you. In fact, if you uncover the tyrants hidden motive or
plan, or provide him with the same, your life would be in danger. If your explanations
are too intellectual, you will be rejected. If your ideas are too long-winded, you will also
be rejected. Plato agrees that rhetoric has no connection to knowledge. Responding to
Gorgias’s claim of being more persuasive in a gathering, Socrates argues, “and doesn’t
‘in a gathering’ just mean ‘among those who don’t have knowledge’?”(459a4) He goes
further, claiming that Oratory does not need subject knowledge, “it only needs to have
discovered some device to produce persuasion in order to make itself appear to those who
don’t have knowledge that it knows more than those who actually do.”(459c3) For Plato,
a rhetorician need only a fraction more knowledge in a group of people who know
nothing. For Aristotle, however, is related to rhetoric. In order to create a successful
deliberative argument, the rhetorician must have knowledge of what the audience holds
most important and must possess topics on how to provide them with happiness.
The last attribute of rhetoric is the relationship between persuasion and
government. In the world of Han Fei Tzu, rhetoric is inextricably tied to government.
Only through careful rhetoric can an aide keep a tyrant from destroying their way of life.
But, by perpetuating the current system, the aide continues the need for a rhetoric of the
weak and oppressed. In Gorgias, Socrates declares oratory “an image of a part of
politics”(463d3). Plato compares sophistry and oratory to pastry baking and cosmetics.
Neither are true representations of justice and legislation, only flattery. In contrast,
Aristotle’s deliberative arguments are the tool of the legislation. Discussions about what
future actions to take are embodied in the deliberative argument. Government cannot
help but concern itself about its own future actions as well as the future of the citizens.
The true essence of rhetoric is still at issue. The contradictions between the
authors’ handling of rhetorical attributes warn of differing opinions. In its most simple
form, Tzu’s persuasion is the science of posturing. The rhetoric of the oppressed is used
to position oneself as close to the tyrant as possible, creating an artificial balance. Only
at this level can the aide utilize his intelligence to protect the nation. The one who
employs this posturing must be ready to become a slave, to encourage the horrible acts of
the tyrant, or to give up credit for his/her ideas – all in the name of better government.
He/she must also be willing to give up the truth. There is no place for the truth in Tzu’s
dangerous combination of rhetoric and government. The high official and the old man
told the truth, “and yet one was actually executed for his words, while the other cast
suspicion on himself.”
Plato’s concerns are logic and truth. Rhetoric satisfies neither of these concerns.
For Plato, rhetoric is a knack. It is flattery that produces pleasure. It mimics the true
operations of government and guesses at what is pleasant without knowing what is best.
Plato’s answer to rhetoric is the process of dialectic. In dialectic, two willing participants
engage in a spoken dialogue. Both are seeking the truth and both are willing to give up if
found to be wrong. Each speaker must ask single, short questions, and respond to such
with quick answers. Through this process the truth can be found. Plato would not accept
Tzu’s system of abandoning the truth for what is beneficial. For Socrates, pursuit of what
was true and just was the only worthwhile pursuit.
Aristotle successfully combines the two incompatible definitions of Tzu and Plato
to create his own idea of rhetorical essence. Tzu’s posturing sycophant is loosely related
to Aristotle’s Ethos. Ethos is the process by which an orator gains credibility with his
audience. The aide gains credibility with the tyrant by all means necessary. Aristotle’s
rhetorician merely tries to make a connection and establish subject credibility. Secondly,
Plato concerned himself with logic and the truth. Aristotle’s Logos is also concerned
with the logic and structure of the argument. In fact, Aristotle calls rhetoric “an offshoot
of dialectic”(I.2) He is very concerned with the structure and logical constructs of any
argument, deliberative or otherwise. Lastly, Aristotle includes Pathos. Pathos is the
connection of the audience to the argument. A rhetorician should take into account how
the audience feels when determining the type of argument to be given. Tzu’s rhetorician
can almost assume the tyrant will always be feeling tyrannical. Plato would disagree,
arguing that the truth should reveal itself, as long as the dialectic is followed, regardless
of audience emotion. Aristotle separates himself from the others with the inclusion of
Pathos.
For over two thousand years, philosophers have argued over the true nature of
rhetoric. Tzu, Plato, and Aristotle are representative of the spectrum of opinions that
exists. Tzu promotes a rhetoric of the oppressed in which truth is put aside for the favor
of the tyrant. This strategy is utilized in every modern-day workplace between workers
and supervisors. Plato fully rejects rhetoric as a false art and calls us to only embrace the
dialectic. This Socratic method is prevalent in almost every law school in the country.
Aristotle acknowledges both personal credibility and proper logical form, but includes a
consideration of the audience’s state of mind. Arguably the most popular form of
rhetoric, Aristotelian rhetoric is used by politicians, media personalities, and advertising
agencies to convince you to make the “right” choice. Each definition has not only
survived years of scrutiny, but has also found its own place in modern society.
Eric D. Hurst
Paper III
July 30, 2002