Fatemeh Raygani; Ali F ath Taheri; Alinaqi Baghershahi; Meysam Sefidkhosh
Abstract
Rhetoric, being among five arts of logic (i.e., Sana’at Khams), is a persuasive yet uncertain art. However, philosophers consider it as a non-philosophical and invalid art. In ...
Read More
Rhetoric, being among five arts of logic (i.e., Sana’at Khams), is a persuasive yet uncertain art. However, philosophers consider it as a non-philosophical and invalid art. In such a view, this art has no philosophical value and its users seek to deceive and influence the audience in order to attract their attention, so logical speech must be de-rhetorical. The study of early philosophers, especially Aristotle, shows that rhetoric is not one of the branches of uncertain logic, but it is a political tool and is a complementary art in practical philosophy, and because practical philosophy is one of the branches of philosophy, it is also related to philosophy. Plato considered rhetoric to be against the politics of society. Aristotle, also under the influence of Plato, first criticized the common discourse of his time, which relied on the Forensic type and sophistic method. Then, he tries to teach a desirable version of rhetoric for the prosperity of society, considering the necessity of rhetoric in political societies. Aristotle uses enthymeme to relate rhetoric to premises and to highlight its political nature by emphasizing the deliberative rhetoric. This study aims to investigate this proposition in Aristotle’s thoughts, and clarify the political implications of rhetoric.
