The Role of Rhetoric in Political Activity - Assignment Example

POLITICAL RHETORIC Student’s Name University Name Course/Semester Instructor Date. Question 1. The contrasting attitudes towards rhetoric in the works of Plato and Aristotle indicate important differences in their understanding of politics itself. Critically compare their estimation of the role of rhetoric in political activity and deliberation. Role of rhetoric in political activity and deliberation There are several contrasting attitudes towards the concept of rhetoric in the works of Aristotle and Plato and this is because they have different understanding of politics. In this essay, the focus will be on the discussions of Aristotle, Plato and their analysis on the concept of rhetoric reasoning in relation to the development of persuasive speech. The paper will also describe the three different aspects of rhetoric that he describes and the explanation of the role that this plays in modern politics. Plato’s View on Political Rhetoric It is notable that Plato does not depict a positive towards the concept of rhetoric and its claims because he believes that philosophers who fully understand reality do not need to be fooled by certain ideologies (Judd, 2005, p. 135). According to Plato, rhetoric is a way of fooling around with people’s minds and making them think that what they are told is true and yet and he claims that a rhetoric talks about something with claims that they know what they are talking about and deceive people because they don’t know what they are saying. People who understand the reality such as philosophers should rule because they speak their ideologies out of facts in comparison to political rhetoric who just speak things that are not substantial. Plato associates rhetoric democracy which entail giving people the freedom of expression in different ways and one has to persuade the masses who have these forms of freedom and Plato believes that philosophers do not have any need for rhetoric. An orator can easily fool the audience in many ways and this does not depict any sense of wisdom or does not appeal to philosophers in any way. Aristotle’s View on Political Rhetoric As much as some philosophers like Plato had negative attitudes and views towards rhetoric, some others like Aristotle were more positive about the whole concept since he claims that philosophers do not have advance knowledge on the ideal state. He believes that politics is a compromise between two or more competing ends and that this highly depends on the situation that a state is facing at a particular time. With this in mind, Aristotle suggests that it is important to give attention and discuss such issues with utmost concern and the discussion should take place in the assembly or parliament. The ideas of democracy that gives people the freedom to express their views and come to a consensus with political parties and political leaders are not highly accepted by some philosophers, but in the case of Aristotle’s views on political rhetoric, he is more accepting to democracy (Hobbes, 2011, p.81). Aristotle believes that rhetoric is important in many ways and in a case where an individual wants to persuade a group of people and make his argument persuasive, then it is good to rely on rhetoric. According to him, the results of political rhetoric are substantial in many aspects. The views of both Plato and Aristotle on political rhetoric is highly connected to their individual beliefs and thoughts on politics. Political Rhetoric Convincing an audience is not an easy task since in most cases, it comprises of people from different backgrounds and different beliefs and getting them to have a unison in their way of thinking is very hard, thus they need a persuasive method or technique that can actually work and this is where the concept of rhetoric is applicable. In implementing rhetoric, a politician makes a public speech which triggers questions that are debatable by the audience and leaves it upon them to decide what they want and in many cases, when the audience realizes that it is hard to find a solution, then they listen to the opinions of the politician and he persuades them to do what he wants (Hobbes, 2011, p.81). The skills necessary for a successful rhetoric implementation are such as having some knowledge on law, religion, teaching, politics and news reporting among others. Persuasive and professional rhetoricians do not have to depict sense of honesty in what they say, but they are often entertaining and effective in what they say. The three main rhetorical forms of persuasion that Aristotle uses are; logos, pathos and ethos. In ethos, the politician tries to create a trust relationship between him and the audience to persuade them through giving them his or her reputation and this does not have to reflect the reality about the politician’s life. Pathos does not have direct involvement with the argument discussed, but depends on the emotional reactions of the audience since it aims at receiving emotions of conviction and in most cases, appealing to the views of the audience works. Logos brings out the intellectual understanding of the audience and focuses on appealing to them from an angle of logical argument. In comparison to Aristotle’s understanding of politics, Plato also believes in it but in a different way. His concern is more on the concept of democracy as one of the aspects of political understanding between politicians and their audience and between their counterparts (ROECKLEIN, 2013, p. 73). Democracy is a form of freedom of expression of point of view either through speaking or acting. This concept is common in modern politics since many countries want to have this form of rule o over their population since it gives them the freedom of expression in many aspects. In a democratic government, a country has the permission to have many political parties that will all bring prospective presidents during elections. Plato’s view on political rhetoric mainly focuses on the implementations of democracy and he points out its benefits and downsides. Plato implies that one of the best ways of implementing the concept of political rhetoric is through having a democratic way of voting that ensures that there is freedom at all costs. Plato believes that common or ordinary people do not comprehend the vast aspects of leadership, thus manipulating them is easy since they are unable to see the intentions of rulers on them (Hobbes, 2011, p.81). He argues that democracy brings out some sense of ruler over the foolish ideology since the audience has very high levels of ignorance. Plato’s point of view of political rhetoric also brings out different aspects of how democracy can be good or bad even though he also argues that the decisions on what is good or bad is debatable or is relative. Question 2. ‘More’s Utopia simultaneously borrows from as well as undermines the construction of ideal Commonwealths in the manner of Plato’s Republic’. Critically discuss The Utopian literature brought about some of the most common ideologies of our time such as gender equality, religious tolerance and preventative medicine among other ideologies. The literature inspired most of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and extended to the twentieth century to influence its social reforms. It also entails other ideologies such as socialism and modern communism (SLOTERDIJK, 2013, p. 27). The concepts of the utopian literature focus on some of the common issues that has affected the society over the years such as the concept of socialism, capitalism and other ideologies that do not seem to clearly provide solutions to problems. This literature tries to explain some concepts such as hard life and factors that contributes to it through instilling fear into the reader’s mind so that they can focus on possible positive outcomes in the future. The concept is more of telling people about the possible worse outcomes of something so that they can focus on solving it to ensure a positive future. The concept of the ideal commonwealth in the Utopian literature simply insinuates that the society should focus on a communal approach when it comes to distribution of wealth, and education and not giving attention to individual success and other experiences. The concept of political rhetoric when juxtaposed with Utopian research proves that most of political leaders in the modern world show these ideologies are true and that they are more like prophesies fulfilled. Most modern political leaders focus on individual success and gains and not on the communal development that they claim when begging for votes and this is something that the Utopian literature clearly brings out (Arendt, 1973, p.57). According to Plato’s views on the concept of common wealth, he believes that joint ownership of things in the society does not produce harmony, rather it brings problems to the society. In a situation of people sharing a family property, joint ownership brings chaos in many ways and if we are to juxtapose Plato’s ideas on commonwealth to our modern society, it is evident that his ideology has some degree of truth in it. He also argues that regulating sharing of things also has its downsides in relation to commonwealth. In comparison to the ideologies of commonwealth in Utopian literature, Plato’s ideology of commonwealth focuses on the realities of things while the literature advocates for the possibilities of things. Question 3: ‘Despite appearances virtue is one of the central concerns in Machiavelli’s The Prince ’. Discuss. In his arguments of good laws and virtue, Machiavelli focuses on the impact of the military on a society since he believes that a society will naturally have good and effective laws when they have a good military. One of his most famous quotes is “the presence of sound military forces indicates the presence of sound laws.” and this is the quote that he used to develop both states and war (Rafael, 2007, p. 173). According to Machiavelli, the military plays a great role in developing a state and that there must be war for one to clearly confirm that they have built the foundations of a state effectively. “The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him.”In his ideology of virtues, he mainly focuses on the description of a good war since this is his belief in establishment or development of a government. This belief is not a new one since there are still few countries around the world that still implement this as part of their state’s development as much as it is an ancient way of doing things. The amazing part of Machiavelli’s point of view on war is that he does not just focus on military approach but also on political international diplomacy, domestic politics, geographical mastery and tactical strategy among other others (Judd, 2005, p. 141). His argument focuses on how to handle their subjects that they conquer in a new territory, conducting a good war, and preventing domestic insurrections that might bring distractions preventing successful war. In his description of virtues, he describes virtue as individual qualities that other people praise such as compassion, piety, and generosity among others. According to him, it is important for a prince to behave in a virtuous manner since there are many people looking up to you, but he also distinct the difference between being virtuous and acting like someone who has certain virtues and claims the results of the two are not similar in many ways. The concept of virtue according to Machiavelli is that it should exist as an individual’s character but they should not overdo it or try to avoid other voices such as cruelty and dishonesty since these are also necessary if employing them can benefit a state. In his dedicatory preface to Leviathan Hobbes wrote: ‘in a way beset with those that contend on one side for too great Liberty, and on the other side for too much Authority, ‘tis hard to pass between the points of both unwounded’. To what extent do you think Leviathan successfully balances the competing claims of authority and liberty? Leviathan tries to bring out the concept and origins of civil government through bringing out his ideas of common wealth and how relates it with his views on the state of human nature without the existence of a government (ROECKLEIN, 2013, p. 73). He argues that human beings are naturally troublesome thus the existence of this nature without a government is terrifying in many aspects since the behaviors of human beings needs controlling because they do not have self-preservation. He argues that the only way to acquire peace and security among humans is through having a natural voluntarily and rational way of agreeing in order to implement the concept of commonwealth in the modern world. According to him, one of the ways of achieving effective commonwealth among citizens is through having a monarch with unlimited rights and this is also one of his beliefs of authority and liberty. His concept of authority and liberty also points out that human beings are naturally antagonistic and this condemns them to living a life of violence if they do not have a government that depicts a form of authority over them (SLOTERDIJK, 2013, p. 39). He also mentions that some of the factors that requires human beings to have limited liberty is their quarrelsome nature “in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition Secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory.” And claims that the primary goals of man is to have gain, reputation and safety. Hobbes also states that one of the best ways of ensuring that there is commonwealth among people is through having a covenant that binds people to the authority above them. The concepts of authority and liberty according to Leviathan mainly focuses on ensuring that man responds positively to the authority above them and the best way of doing this is through ensuring that a covenant is made between them and the government. This is probably where the whole concept of government constitutions came from. Conclusion In conclusion, the concepts of Aristotle, Plato and Machiavelli all try to bring out the understandings they have towards political rhetoric and they bring it from different understanding and how it can be applicable in modern society. The arguments of all these three philosophers shine light on the concepts of political thinking that has existed over the years and still applicable in modern political point of view around the world. Bibliography ROECKLEIN, R. J. (2013). Machiavelli and Epicureanism: an investigation into the origins of early modern political thought. Lanham, Lexington Book SLOTERDIJK, P. (2013). Philosophical temperaments: From Plato to Foucault. New York, Columbia University Press. Hobbes, Leviathan (2011). Relevant sections: chapters 11,13,14,16, Book II (Of Commonwealth) esp. chapters 17-22. Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt Jovanovich, 1973), pp. 139-147. Judd Owen, J. ‘The Tolerant Leviathan: Hobbes and the Paradox of Liberalism’, Polity, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 130-148. Rafael Major, ‘A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients’, Political Research Quarterly, Vol.60, no.2, June 2007, pp.171-179. Read More

The ideas of democracy that gives people the freedom to express their views and come to a consensus with political parties and political leaders are not highly accepted by some philosophers, but in the case of Aristotle’s views on political rhetoric, he is more accepting to democracy (Hobbes, 2011, p.81). Aristotle believes that rhetoric is important in many ways and in a case where an individual wants to persuade a group of people and make his argument persuasive, then it is good to rely on rhetoric.

According to him, the results of political rhetoric are substantial in many aspects. The views of both Plato and Aristotle on political rhetoric is highly connected to their individual beliefs and thoughts on politics. Political Rhetoric Convincing an audience is not an easy task since in most cases, it comprises of people from different backgrounds and different beliefs and getting them to have a unison in their way of thinking is very hard, thus they need a persuasive method or technique that can actually work and this is where the concept of rhetoric is applicable.

In implementing rhetoric, a politician makes a public speech which triggers questions that are debatable by the audience and leaves it upon them to decide what they want and in many cases, when the audience realizes that it is hard to find a solution, then they listen to the opinions of the politician and he persuades them to do what he wants (Hobbes, 2011, p.81). The skills necessary for a successful rhetoric implementation are such as having some knowledge on law, religion, teaching, politics and news reporting among others.

Persuasive and professional rhetoricians do not have to depict sense of honesty in what they say, but they are often entertaining and effective in what they say. The three main rhetorical forms of persuasion that Aristotle uses are; logos, pathos and ethos. In ethos, the politician tries to create a trust relationship between him and the audience to persuade them through giving them his or her reputation and this does not have to reflect the reality about the politician’s life. Pathos does not have direct involvement with the argument discussed, but depends on the emotional reactions of the audience since it aims at receiving emotions of conviction and in most cases, appealing to the views of the audience works.

Logos brings out the intellectual understanding of the audience and focuses on appealing to them from an angle of logical argument. In comparison to Aristotle’s understanding of politics, Plato also believes in it but in a different way. His concern is more on the concept of democracy as one of the aspects of political understanding between politicians and their audience and between their counterparts (ROECKLEIN, 2013, p. 73). Democracy is a form of freedom of expression of point of view either through speaking or acting.

This concept is common in modern politics since many countries want to have this form of rule o over their population since it gives them the freedom of expression in many aspects. In a democratic government, a country has the permission to have many political parties that will all bring prospective presidents during elections. Plato’s view on political rhetoric mainly focuses on the implementations of democracy and he points out its benefits and downsides. Plato implies that one of the best ways of implementing the concept of political rhetoric is through having a democratic way of voting that ensures that there is freedom at all costs.

Plato believes that common or ordinary people do not comprehend the vast aspects of leadership, thus manipulating them is easy since they are unable to see the intentions of rulers on them (Hobbes, 2011, p.81). He argues that democracy brings out some sense of ruler over the foolish ideology since the audience has very high levels of ignorance. Plato’s point of view of political rhetoric also brings out different aspects of how democracy can be good or bad even though he also argues that the decisions on what is good or bad is debatable or is relative.

Read More