Now that we’re past the preludes, we’re into the substance of the Aristotelian text.
Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both, for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously, and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art.
Now, the framers of the current treatises on rhetoric have constructed but a small portion of that art. The modes of persuasion are the only true constituents of the art: everything else is merely accessory.
However, if you’re interested in the history of human thought, you might like to check out today’s post tracing the subversion of the concept of objective Beauty on Sigma Game, which was inspired by a question about the attractiveness of a Hollywood starlet.
From the smallest seeds spring mighty oaks…