After the readings, I agree with how Aristotle explains rhetoric. I don't agree with the Sophists because I believe in wisdom and Truth and it's not just what a person perceives it to be. "For Aristotle, only scientific demonstration and the analysis of formal logic can arrive at absolute truth. (RT p.170) and I agree that there is an absolute truth and the absolute truth is discovered through analysis of logic and scientific demonstration and that is how you get to an absolute truth.
Aristotle's rhetoric was divided into two categories which is artistic proofs and inartistic proofs. He explains each one and how it came to be. Artistic proof is when the rhetorician makes the material, they try to make something smoother. Inartistic proofs is based off evidence that is already there, solid facts that stand. Aristotle's method in rhetoric was different to me and based on absolute truths that came from facts, logic and science and I agree with Truth. Other rhetoric scholars, went off their own definition of rhetoric and Aristotle and Pluto went based off theirs too but they wanted to incorporate themselves into it since there was no solid definition. "Aristotle seemed to disprove of Isocrates' approach to rhetoric as much as Pluto" (RT p, 169) which is how Pluto's viewpoint came to my attention.
I believe and agree with Aristotle because I believe in logic and science can give you the truth, not the one you want but the one that's absolute and none changing. But also Pluto because wisdom is knowledge and knowledge is absolute and none changing, things can change but your knowledge is there. Both Pluto and Aristotle are both rhetoric scholars with different views but I agree with both aspects to understand what rhetoric is to me and how I see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment