Reflective Blog #1

The Sophists possibly receive a harsh judgment, considering that modern schools of thought rely so heavily on Plato and Aristotle, who opposed the Sophists. In fact, there is some validity to their arguments, if not some innate connection to my own definition of rhetoric. Due to my own scholastic background, the Sophistic perspective, which takes on a much more culturally relativistic approach that I often align with, fits best my understanding of rhetoric as a tool for exploring the vast variety of probable truths that can be used and uncovered. On the other hand, Plato gives me the objectivity that all philosophies need. Without a constant, an objective reality or morality, trying to know the truth about anything is pretty much futile. There is some comfort and good reason in believing that some truths simply are. However, in Aristotle's denial of transcendent knowledge and embrace of logical processes that lead to true knowledge, there is an appeal to my modern mind, one that loves to deduct reason and impose logic on all situations. I have come to accept that Aristotle's (and evidently my own) reliance on ration is flawed (not everything is rational, or some things cannot be rationalized), but meanwhile, the rational, rhetorical techniques he suggests often beget or imply emotional, or rather, non-rationalized responses. Even if not explicitly stated, it is because of his acceptance of human variability and understanding of natural laws and truths that I find Aristotle’s work on rhetoric the most compelling.

I may be extrapolating too much from Aristotle’s texts, but he seems to blend some of the best ideas of the philosophers before him in order to define rhetoric for himself. It seems that Aristotle believes one can be too objective, and that while rhetoric is a tool that is purposed for defense of the self, he takes a moral high ground in a few ways (though never as ascendant as Plato) and that distinction between arguing for justice and argument for the sake of self-preservation or “proving a point” (the critique of many Sophists) makes his school’s definition more accessible than either of the previously mentioned schools.

More abstractly, a statement he makes about government and the concept's junction with rhetorical application binds many of my own personal thoughts on rhetoric together. That is, he asserts that "all men are persuaded by consideration of their interest, and their interest lies in the maintenance of the established order" (Bizzell and Herzberg, 196). Here is likely the safest dwelling for a rhetor and an audience. There is self-interest, but only in consideration with the interest of maintaining social bounds and rules. Here, a rhetor can pursue truth in self-defense and in the upholding of the state (of justice) and in doing so avoid forcefulness and utilize leniency and appeal – not to the physical senses, but to the rational, ethical, and emotional. By seeking the truth through pathos, logos, and ethos, the rhetor can be secure in their station, and the audience can respond and reflect without the opposition of undeniable objectivity or boundless relativism. For me, that creates the most productive and “gray” (in regard to the other schools) space for discourse and rhetoric. Basically, Aristotle’s notion of rhetoric allows for wiggle room between empirical science and "encultured" perceptions. Plato’s truths by divination and the Sophistic indifference are polarizing. And despite the fact that I don’t entirely abide by Aristotle’s definition, especially due to our difference in classifying truth, and all that can be rationalized or made true, it is an idea that is within reach, and is building upon what I think rhetoric is and what it can and should be used for.