Reflective Blog Post 1

I find that the the philosophies in rhetorical approach that were developed by Plato and then Aristotle differ in the overall attitude toward the subject of rhetoric. Plato seems to have a pessimistic and cynical view of rhetoric, believing that it is a tool used by the few better educated individuals to negatively influence the less educated masses for personal gain. This sort of rhetoric can be apparent in many political speeches of the past that encourage war or discriminatory behaviors such as apartheid  in South Africa and segregation in the United States. It is understood by some that Plato is "rhetoric's implacable foe, largely responsible for its unsavory reputation in the Western tradition." (RT 80).
The rhetorical theory of Aristotle takes a more optimistic approach where he seems to believe that the positives of truth and justice outweigh the negatives of their opposites. He wrote "first, because truth and justice are naturally stronger than their opposites; so that, when awards are not given duly, truth and justice must have been worsted by their own fault." (SAA 67). There are more examples in history of inspiring and influential speeches and addresses made for the purpose of society;s improvement and the overall happiness of the people. Aristotle's philosophy is one I agree with more. I like to think that any particular audience of a rhetor would be able to distinguish the negative from the positive and as a result act upon the negative and reject the positive. Of course, there are always exceptions, such as the rise in right-wing extremist views from individuals who claim to be inspired by the rhetoric of Donald Trump and other republican politicians. I do think it takes a certain level of education to be able to develop the critical thinking ability to discern truth from falsehood and justice from injustice, which might be a similarity with Plato's philosophy.