Reflective Blog Post 1

After the readings I found myself originally aligned to Plato, ideally rhetoric should be used to guide people towards the "truth". I do think there are transcendent truths that should influence the ways in which we perceive virtue, however, I understand that defining The Truth can be murky. Reading about Plato's student Aristotle allowed me to create a better idea of what rhetoric means to me. Aristotle was still highly aware of the importance of rhetoric as a tool to lead humans towards what is "good", however he also noted the malleability of people and how rhetoric could align an audience towards one's perspective. "... rhetoric is a moral, but practical art grounded in the probability or the contingent nature of things." (p.68 CRT) 

Aristotle highlighted how the environment shapes the rhetor's course of action when constructing an argument. By noticing the importance of what shapes an audience in terms of their environment and beliefs it is easier to reach them, as well as to build on their ideas. “If the audience esteems a quality, we must say that our hero has that quality, no matter whether we are addressing Scythians or Spartans or philosophers.” (p.199 RT). Aristotle's way of organizing rhetoric showed me his deep understanding of how to compose a successful argument, specially his way of persuading "man" as a whole. "Further, while the enthymeme is technically a form of logical proof, it frequently produces an emotional and ethical response."(p.71 CRT). He saw rhetoric as a way to bridge people towards difficult subjects and the exploring of difficult solutions, which to me seems more accessible than leading people towards the truth. Specifically, in comparison to my previous ideas of how rhetoric is used nowadays. “In the Rhetoric, Aristotle attempts to dignify its use in making decisions about matter on which true knowledge isn’t available”. (p170. RT)