Aristotle and Plato are some of the most well-known students of rhetoric (Bergstrom, 2020). However, a break in perspectives became evident when Aristotle contradicted his former mentor, proclaiming that rhetoric is the inseparable companion of philosophy, thus becoming the very counterpart of Socratic philosophy (Crider, 2014). The essence of this statement lies in the conviction that, when presenting arguments, all individuals seek to be persuasive (Muelas, 2019). In other words, while expressing their views, people not only aim to present arguments but also to make others adopt their perspective, even before fully evaluating the presented arguments. In summary, according to Muelas (2019), rhetoric focuses on persuading others to adopt the point of view expressed by the one presenting the arguments.
Rhetorical Foundations
Plato's student's studies focused on rhetoric (Muelas, 2019), defined as the ability to identify what might be persuasive in each particular situation (Rapp, 2010). This discipline is not limited to persuasion alone; it also provides valuable insights into the cognitive characteristics of language and style (Rapp, 2010). Consequently, in line with Floyd (2014), it lays the groundwork for both writers and speakers to effectively construct their arguments.
However, this assertion does not imply that the rhetorician has the ability to persuade everyone in any situation (Rapp, 2010). Instead, it more closely resembles the position of a physician who fully understands their art only if they do not neglect any aspect that could contribute to the healing of their patient, albeit aware that they cannot guarantee healing for everyone. Similarly, in correspondence with Rapp (2010), the rhetorician achieves a complete understanding of their method only when they manage to discover and effectively use the various means of persuasion available, albeit with the intrinsic limitation of being unable to convince everyone.
In short, rhetoric consists of the ability to persuade others to accept the presented point of view (Muelas, 2019). This ability can be used for good or ill purposes; it can bring significant benefits but also great harm (Rapp, 2010). Although Aristotle acknowledges that his rhetorical art could be misused, he also highlights significant mitigating factors. Firstly, he points out that, in general, all goods, except virtue, can be used incorrectly. Secondly, he argues that Aristotelian rhetoric facilitates the persuasion of the just and good compared to those with opposing opinions. Ultimately, according to Rapp (2010), the risks of misuse are balanced with the potential benefits offered by rhetoric in the style of Aristotle.
Methods of Persuasion
Pathos
In the first instance, pathos involves suffering and experience (Muelas, 2019). Within the framework of Aristotelian rhetoric, this notion becomes relevant when referring to the speaker or writer's skill in evoking emotions and feelings in the audience. Likewise, pathos is closely linked to emotions, aiming to generate sympathy in the public and stimulate their imagination (Muelas, 2019). In short, according to Bergstrom (2020), it is about how emotions influence discourse and conversations.
Essentially, the goal of pathos is to cultivate empathy in the audience (Muelas, 2019). By using this strategy, the values, beliefs, and understanding of the arguer intricately intertwine, conveyed to the audience through careful narrative construction. Hence, various studies support the notion that empathy not only plays a crucial role in improving communication but also contributes to strengthening emotional bonds between people (Muelas, 2019). In this sense, the speaker must evoke emotions in the audience, as emotions have the power to influence judgments (Rapp, 2010). For example, Rapp (2010) states that, for a judge in a friendly mood, the person they are about to judge may seem to act not wrong or only to a small extent; but for an angry judge, the same person will appear to do the opposite.
Following this line of thought, the use of pathos stands out when the arguments to be presented are controversial (Muelas, 2019). Since such arguments often lack logic, success will depend on the ability to empathize with the audience. For instance, Muelas (2019) mentions that in an argument in favor of the legal prohibition of abortion, vivid expressions can be used to describe babies and the innocence of a new life, aiming to evoke sadness and concern in the audience.
Ethos
In the second instance, ethos refers to character, originated from the word ethikos, denoting the moral and revealing moral personality (Muelas, 2019). For speakers and writers, ethos is not just an abstract notion but is concretely manifested through their credibility and the relationship they establish with the audience (Muelas, 2019). That is, the way ethos manifests itself has a direct impact on how the speaker or writer reaches the audience (Bergstrom, 2020). According to Téllez (2016), if the audience does not perceive the speaker as a trustworthy figure, any attempt at persuasion is hindered, even in the presence of logical arguments or effective non-verbal cues.
Ultimately, according to Aristotle's rhetoric, ethos is crucial for arousing interest in the audience (Muelas, 2019). To achieve this, the tone and style of the message are fundamental. Additionally, character is also influenced by the arguer's reputation, which is independent of the message (Muelas, 2019). For example, the speaker may be an expert in the field, have a qualifying degree, or a trophy demonstrating mastery of the discipline being described (Téllez, 2016). Likewise, according to Muelas (2019), addressing an audience as peers, rather than as passive characters, increases the likelihood of active participation in discussions.
Logos
In the last instance, logos means word, discourse, or reason (Muelas, 2019). In the realm of persuasion, it is crucial that logos constitutes the logical foundation supporting the speaker's claims since it refers to any effort to appeal to intellect, i.e., logical arguments (Muelas, 2019). In short, logos refers to how an argument is structured and how logic is employed (Bergstrom, 2020). Thus, logical thinking takes two forms: deductive and inductive. On the one hand, deductive reasoning establishes that if A and B are true, then the intersection of A and B must also be true (Muelas, 2019). On the other hand, induction is defined as the process that goes from the particular to the universal (Rapp, 2010). According to Muelas (2019), this type of reasoning uses premises, but the conclusion is simply an expectation and, due to its subjective nature, does not necessarily have to be considered true.
The Current Rhetoric
In Aristotle's rhetoric, logos was his preferred argumentation technique (Muelas, 2019). However, in everyday arguments, pathos and ethos play a crucial role. The combination of these three elements not only makes essays more convincing but also becomes the primary focus in discussion teams, as the right words can address uncertainties about global prominence (Muelas, 2019; Bergstrom, 2020). Those who master these techniques have the ability to persuade others to take specific actions, such as buying a product or service (Muelas, 2019). Nevertheless, in accordance with Muelas (2019), pathos seems to have a more significant influence today since populist speeches, aiming to evoke emotions rather than provide logical arguments, appear to be more effective.
This phenomenon is clearly evident in the realm of fake news (Muelas, 2019). These pieces of information, often lacking a solid logical structure, manage to capture the audience's attention due to their ability to generate empathy. It is necessary to highlight, in line with Muelas (2019), that awareness of these rhetorical tactics can strengthen an individual's ability to discern between truthful and deceptive information, thereby contributing to a more informed and critical audience.
References
Bergstrom, G. (2020). How Does Aristotle Tie Into Smart Public Relations Tactics?. The Balance Small Business. Recuperado 4 June 2021, a partir de https://www.thebalancesmb.com/three-parts-rhetoric-three-types-of-debates-2295955
Crider, S. (2014). Aristotle’s Rhetoric for Everybody. Artsofliberty.udallas.edu. Recuperado 3 June 2021, a partir de https://artsofliberty.udallas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Introductory-Rhetoric.pdf
Floyd, C. (2014). Aristotle's Rhetoric: The Power of Words and the Continued Relevance of Persuasion. Core.ac.uk. Recuperado 1 June 2021, a partir de https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/37765798.pdf
Muelas, R. (2019). Pathos, ethos y logos: la retórica de Aristóteles - La Mente es Maravillosa. La Mente es Maravillosa. Recuperado 1 June 2021, a partir de https://lamenteesmaravillosa.com/pathos-ethos-y-logos-la-retorica-de-aristoteles/
Rapp, C. (2010). Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Plato.stanford.edu. Recuperado 1 June 2021, a partir de https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
Téllez, N. (2016). Ethos, Pathos, Logos. La retórica de Aristóteles para persuadir. Nachotellez.com. Recuperado 23 June 2021, a partir de https://nachotellez.com/es/ethos-pathos-logos-aristoteles-persuasion/
Comments