Reflective Post 1

From the three theorists that we have seen so far, I identify more closely with Aristotle’s definition for rhetoric. Like Plato, Aristotle was concerned with the idea of absolute knowledge, but unlike Plato, Aristotle believed that absolute knowledge stemmed from research and “empirical means by which it was obtained” while Plato believed in the transcendental nature of knowledge (p. 170). I personally agree with the Sophists’ notion that our senses our flawed and therefore our knowledge is, and will always be, incomplete, so the fact that Aristotle also takes into the account the idea of probable knowledge.

I also agree with Aristotle on his assertion that rhetoric is a neutral skill, like any other, that can be used to achieve goodness, conveying truth, or evil, conveying lies. Because getting to and conveying the truth is Aristotle’s main reason for employing rhetoric, it makes sense that it can be used in a variety of subjects, from politics and law to the sciences. This is another way I agree with Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric. I also like that he appears more thorough than both the Sophists and Plato on the subject, but I’ll attribute that to some of their works being lost in history.