How to Win Any Debate (Without Being an A**hole)
Summary
TLDRThis video delves into the ancient Greek debate on rhetoric, contrasting Plato's skepticism with Aristotle's belief in its potential for good. Aristotle advocated for rhetoric as a tool for honest persuasion, emphasizing the importance of logical argumentation, emotional appeal, and understanding the audience. The script explores how to craft strong arguments, the role of emotions in persuasion, and the ethical considerations of using rhetoric to influence beliefs and actions.
Takeaways
- 📚 The historical debate on sophistry and philosophy highlights the importance of moral purpose in argumentation, with Plato favoring private dialectical discussions over public debate, while Aristotle sought to integrate rhetoric into good faith philosophical study.
- 🗣️ Aristotle's 'Rhetoric' emphasizes the necessity of learning rhetoric, as it is a tool that will be used regardless, and understanding it can help philosophers avoid falling into sophistry and recognize the difference between reasoned argument and emotional manipulation.
- 🤔 The script challenges the skepticism towards rhetoric by arguing that it is not inherently dishonest, but a tool that can be used for various ends, and that the basis for honest persuasion should still be the quality of argumentation.
- 🍰 The metaphor of a cake is used to illustrate the balance between logical arguments and persuasive presentation, suggesting that while the logical argument is foundational, the presentation can enhance its appeal without compromising its integrity.
- 🧐 Aristotle's approach to rhetoric is contrasted with Plato's, with the former being more concerned with practical engagement with the world as it is, rather than striving for an ideal.
- 🔍 The script discusses the importance of having a defensible position in rhetoric, underlining the need for preparation, practice, and epistemic responsibility in argument construction.
- 📉 The concept of 'enthymemes' is introduced as a type of argument that, while not deductively valid, lends credibility to its conclusion based on the strength of its premises.
- 📚 The use of examples in reasoning is highlighted as a way to illustrate points or lend support to conclusions, contingent on the relevance and similarity of the examples to the situation being discussed.
- 😡 Aristotle's view on emotions in rhetoric is explored, detailing how emotions like anger, fear, and friendliness can be stirred in an audience to influence their beliefs and actions.
- 👥 The importance of understanding the audience is stressed, with the speaker advised to consider the audience's preconceived beliefs, biases, and emotional stances to effectively tailor their argument.
- 🎨 Aristotle's miscellaneous tips for arguing include balancing clarity with eloquence, using metaphors and similes for vividness, and considering the scope of arguments to ensure persuasive effectiveness.
Q & A
What is the main distinction between a sophist and a philosopher according to the script?
-The main distinction is not in their faculty of argumentation but in their moral purpose. Sophists are often associated with dishonesty and manipulative reasoning, while philosophers are engaged in the pursuit of truth and knowledge.
Why did Plato argue that public debate was the realm of the sophist?
-Plato believed that public debate was prone to dishonesty and manipulation, and he scorned the democratic demagogues of Athens for their role in the death of Socrates. He thought that real philosophy should ideally be conducted in private, dialectical discussions.
How did Aristotle's approach to rhetoric differ from Plato's?
-Aristotle took a more moderate approach than Plato. He aimed to turn rhetoric and debate into a school for good-faith philosophical study, believing that rhetoric could be used for honest persuasion when based on sound argumentation.
What is the significance of Babel as mentioned in the script?
-Babel is a language learning tool that is mentioned as the sponsor of the video. It offers a practical outlook on language learning, structuring lessons around useful topics and providing a 20-day money-back guarantee.
Why does Aristotle believe that rhetoric is a necessary skill for philosophers to learn?
-Aristotle believes that rhetoric is a necessary skill because people will use it anyway, and understanding it can help philosophers to persuade others, spread their beliefs, and win arguments, while also avoiding falling into the traps of dishonesty.
What is an 'enthymeme' in the context of Aristotle's philosophy?
-An enthymeme is an argument that is not deductively valid but lends credence to its conclusion from its premises. It is weaker than a deductive syllogism but can still provide strong evidence for a position.
How does Aristotle view the role of emotions in rhetoric?
-Aristotle views emotions as a crucial component of rhetoric. He believes that emotions can be used to advantage by an orator to stir the audience's feelings and manipulate their actions, but they should be used ethically and in service of honest arguments.
What are some of the emotions that Aristotle discusses in relation to rhetoric?
-Aristotle discusses emotions such as anger, calmness, fear, and friendliness/hostility. He explains how each emotion can be used to influence the audience and provides guidance on how to ethically provoke these emotions.
How does Aristotle suggest understanding the audience for effective rhetoric?
-Aristotle suggests that a good orator should understand the audience's preconceived beliefs, biases, and emotional stances. This understanding allows the orator to tailor their argument to resonate with the audience and to use emotional appeals appropriately.
What are some of the miscellaneous tips for arguing that Aristotle provides?
-Aristotle provides tips such as balancing clarity with eloquence, using metaphors and similes for vividness, emphasizing key points, and constructing arguments to lead the audience to the same conclusion as the speaker through their own reasoning.
What is the overarching theme of Aristotle's approach to rhetoric as presented in the script?
-The overarching theme is that rhetoric should be used ethically and in service of good-faith arguments. Aristotle emphasizes the importance of understanding both the logical and emotional aspects of persuasion and tailoring arguments to the audience while maintaining honesty and integrity.
Outlines
📚 The Role of Debate and Rhetoric in Philosophy
This paragraph delves into the historical and philosophical perspectives on debate and rhetoric. It contrasts Plato's disdain for public debate, which he associated with sophistry, with Aristotle's more moderate approach, aiming to integrate rhetoric into good faith philosophical study. The paragraph introduces the topic of learning rhetoric to avoid falling into sophistry and to understand the distinction between reasoned argument and emotional manipulation. It also acknowledges the practicality of rhetoric, given its inevitability in human communication, and sets the stage for a deeper exploration of Aristotle's views on the subject.
🗣️ Foundations of Aristotle's Rhetorical System
The second paragraph focuses on the foundational aspects of Aristotle's rhetorical system. It emphasizes the importance of having a defensible position as the first pillar of good rhetoric, which requires both preparation and epistemic responsibility. The paragraph explores the concept of 'enthymeme,' an argument that lends credence to its conclusion without certainty, and distinguishes it from deductive arguments. It also discusses the use of examples in reasoning, both for illustration and as evidence supporting a conclusion, highlighting the need for relevant similarity between examples and the situation at hand.
🧡 Aristotle on Emotions in Rhetoric
This paragraph explores Aristotle's insights into the role of emotions in rhetoric. Aristotle discusses how different emotions like anger, calmness, fear, and friendship can be stirred in an audience to influence their actions or reactions. He provides a causal story for each emotion, explaining what tends to provoke them and how they can be used effectively by an orator. The paragraph also touches on the ethical implications of using emotions in rhetoric, suggesting that while it can be used honestly to reflect the audience's feelings, it can also be exploited to manipulate them.
🤝 Understanding the Audience for Effective Rhetoric
The fourth paragraph discusses the importance of understanding the audience in the art of rhetoric. It suggests that being aware of the audience's existing beliefs, biases, and emotional stances is crucial for a speaker to effectively persuade. The paragraph advises starting from common ground and considering the audience's age, social status, and circumstances, which can all influence their receptiveness to arguments. It also emphasizes the ethical responsibility of using this understanding to present honest and beneficial arguments rather than misleading ones.
🎨 Stylistic Elements in Persuasive Argumentation
In this paragraph, Aristotle examines the stylistic elements that contribute to the persuasiveness of an argument. He advises balancing clarity with eloquence, using metaphors and similes for concise communication, and creating vivid images to make ideas more impactful. The paragraph also discusses the strategic use of emphasis to highlight key points and the importance of timing in leading the audience to the same conclusion as the speaker. It suggests that engaging the audience in the argumentative process can make them more sympathetic to the speaker's position.
🌟 Mastering the Art of Persuasion
The final paragraph offers miscellaneous tips for enhancing oratorical skill, such as knowing when to use poetic language sparingly for impact, considering the scope of arguments, and employing counterexamples effectively. It emphasizes the importance of practicing persuasion in real discussions to refine one's skills and suggests using rhetorical devices self-reflectively to understand one's own biases and emotional responses. The paragraph concludes by relating the study of persuasion to the Socratic ideal of self-knowledge, encouraging the use of Aristotle's teachings to uncover and counteract manipulative tactics that might influence one's own will.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Sophist
💡Dialectical discussion
💡Rhetoric
💡Enthymeme
💡Persuasiveness
💡Emotion
💡Epistemic humility
💡Goodwill
💡Straw man
💡Vividness
💡Eloquence
Highlights
The debate on the value of sophistry in moral purpose versus faculty dates back to ancient Greece, with Plato and Aristotle holding differing views on its role in society.
Plato viewed public debate as the domain of sophists and favored private dialectical discussions for true philosophy.
Aristotle advocated for a moderate approach, aiming to transform rhetoric and debate into a tool for good faith philosophical study.
Aristotle's work on rhetoric emphasizes the importance of understanding the emotional aspects of persuasion and their impact on argumentation.
Rhetoric is not inherently dishonest; it's a tool that can be used for any end, with honest persuasion based on the quality of argumentation.
Aristotle discusses the use of 'enthymemes,' arguments that lend credence to a conclusion without absolute certainty, as a key component of rhetoric.
Examples in reasoning serve to illustrate points and can support conclusions when there is relevant similarity to the situation discussed.
Aristotle's approach to emotions in rhetoric provides instructions for the orator on how to stir appropriate emotions in an audience.
Understanding the audience's preconceived beliefs and biases is crucial for effective persuasion and argument presentation.
Aristotle suggests using metaphors and similes for concise communication of complex ideas and to make arguments vivid.
The importance of balancing clarity with eloquence in rhetoric to maintain audience engagement without appearing verbose.
Aristotle emphasizes the role of the orator in understanding the human mind, tailoring arguments to the audience's characteristics and beliefs.
The art of persuasion involves knowing oneself and recognizing the tactics that might be used to manipulate one's own will.
Aristotle's rhetoric provides a framework for distinguishing virtuous use of rhetoric from vice, focusing on honest argumentation.
The transcript discusses the importance of emotional intelligence in rhetoric, both for understanding and manipulating an audience's emotions.
Aristotle's view on rhetoric includes practical advice for orators, such as using emphasis to highlight key points and making ideas vivid.
The transcript explores the ethical implications of rhetoric, cautioning against the use of manipulative tactics for dishonest purposes.
Aristotle's approach to rhetoric is grounded in a naturalistic view of humanity, acknowledging the role of emotions and character in persuasion.
The transcript concludes by emphasizing the value of studying rhetoric for self-improvement and gaining insight into one's own thought processes.
Transcripts
what makes a man a sophist is not his
faculty but his moral purpose
historically the idea of debate has been
pretty controversial amongst
philosophers on the one hand it can be
an excellent way to hone ideas challenge
yourself and others and perhaps learn
something new but on the other the realm
of practical debate is chock full of
dishonesty facius reasoning and outright
slander so what are we to do how should
the honest thinker approach argument
funnily enough this is a problem that
stretches right back to ancient Greece
Plato had argued that public debate was
basically the realm of the sophist and
that real philosophy was done in private
dialectical discussion he scorned the
Democratic demagogues of Athens who had
put Socrates to death and argued that
philosophy and rhetoric should ideally
never touch however his pupil Aristotle
took a more moderate approach he wanted
to turn rhetoric and debate into a
school fit for good faith philosophy
iCal study and luckily we have access to
his work on this very topic get ready to
learn why philosophers should know the
dirty tricks of debate how we can avoid
turning into sophists and the difference
between reasoned argument and emotional
manipulation but before any of that I
want to quickly thank our very kind
sponsor for this video Babel Babel is a
great language learning tool where you
can study anything from Russian to
Italian to Spanish in a natural
intuitive and conversational fashion at
the moment I'm trying to improve my
French so I can read kamu in his
original language and
while the thing that separates Babel
from a lot of other language learning
apps is its practical Outlook it
structures lessons around sensible
useful topics like travel or business or
relationships additionally they have a
20-day money back guarantee so if you
try it and you find it's not a good fit
you can write to them for a full refund
click my link below to take bbl's quiz
and save up to 60% today so give it a go
start learning some languages and thank
you my dear viewer for watching this
interlude the whole way through one why
learn rhetoric the first question on
many people's minds when it comes to
this topic is why should we bother
learning about rhetoric in the first
place and there are good reasons to be
skeptical of this skill rhetoric is
associated less with honest
argumentation and the exploration of
ideas and much more with underhanded
debate tactics and hor manipulation and
this is to a certain extent a
well-deserved reputation even in
Aristotle's time rhetorical skill had
been used to convince the people of
Athens to embark on a whole series of
disastrous decisions during the recent
pelian War so that's a good precedent
for fearing the realm of public debate
and even saying it is outright dishonest
however throughout this work
appropriately titled rhetoric Aristotle
peppers in these reasons for why
philosophers should take rhetoric
seriously even if they only consider it
a necessary evil the first is just that
people are going to use rhetoric anyway
it is such a useful tool if you want to
persuade someone to do something or
spread your belief system or just win an
argument over dinner there is no chance
it's going to up and vanish it has been
over 2,000 years since Plato wrote his
damning condemnations of sophistry and
yet we have not turned into a society of
perfectly reasonable agents simply
putting forward logical arguments and
seeing where the facts lie as much as it
pains me to say it humans are are simply
not creatures of pure logic and if
goodfaith arguers run away from this
fact then they just guarantee that
someone arguing in bad faith will almost
always win out in the end if we take
this faux principled stance and avoid
studying rhetoric then it would be like
refusing to stop using swords after the
invention of the machine gun sure we may
have won some internal moral Victory but
we're going to get moaned down by hails
of [ __ ] as a result Aristotle also
takes pains to show how rhetoric is not
inherently dishonest it is a tool that
can be used by anyone for any end he
reiterates over and over again that the
basis for any honest persuasion should
still be the quality of the
argumentation we should be using sound
and defensible arguments but he says we
cannot leave it there we must recognize
that people are not only persuaded by
Logic but also by emotion and
perceptions of character we may not like
it but that is just how things are we
can either live in the world as it
exists or pretend we live in a world
that we wish would exist it's just that
living in an ideal world is practically
speaking a recipe for disaster we can
think of an honest use of rhetoric as a
bit like a cake the logical arguments
would form a highquality dough baked to
Perfection very few cakes can taste
their best without this element but at
the same time if we're looking to sell a
cake we cannot stop there we must then
add some icing and decoration consider
the color scheme and the aesthetic of
the cake all while bearing in mind that
this does not compromise the quality of
the taste then our well-made cake is
more likely to be bought and enjoyed
this is worlds away from baking an
atrocious cake and then trying to trick
people into buying it by dulling it up
as much as possible in the first case
the outer quality is merely an honest
reflection of the inner quality while
the appearance of the second attempts to
sell us on an inner richness that simply
does not exist additionally Aristotle
thinks that a philosophical treatment of
persuasiveness is worthwhile in any case
because people are in fact persuaded by
a myriad of different things and this is
interesting in of itself if we are to be
critical of our own beliefs and the
beliefs of others then it is helpful to
have an understanding of how we might
have been persuaded and the types of
things that are more persuasive in
general if nothing else learning the
underhanded tactics of Debaters will
allow us to point out what they're doing
and hopefully lessen the effectiveness
of these techniques if they're being
used in service to a poor overall point
this is sort of characteristic of the
kind of approach Aristotle brought to
philosophy whereas speaking incredibly
Loosely Plato was very concerned with
the ideal and striving towards this
ideal Aristotle was far more concerned
about encountering the world as it
exists and learning to navigate it in a
practical and everyday fashion while he
would not have recognized the label and
he does differ from it in many ways
Aristotle's thinking has a far greater
empiricist bent to it than Plato's and
this is evident in the Practical and
naturalistic way that he discusses
rhetoric and persuasiveness so if you
find yourself at any point in this video
thinking that these tactics seem a
little bit deceptive or dubious that is
absolutely fine the point is to take the
honest ones and use them in service to
an honest argument while at the same
time learning how to combat the
dishonest ones this is how Aristotle
might distinguish a virtuous use of
rhetoric from a vice full one so with
that in mind let's discuss the very
Foundation of Aristotle's rhetorical
system the way he builds a reasonable
argument two reasons and persons for
Aristotle the first pillar of good
rhetoric is simply to have a defensible
position this is where the study of
rhetoric crosses over both the internal
and external spheres because of course
finding a defensible position is
something that takes preparation and
practice ahead of time and is also an
issue of straightforward epistemic
responsibility so it is important to
both understand the structure of your
arguments and what separates a strong
argument from a weak one obviously this
is a huge topic and there's been an
awful lot of thinking on this since
Aristotle but at the same time he
definitely has some useful pointers I
just want to preface this section by
saying what AR Aristotle means here is
hotly debated by Scholars and this is
just my preferred interpretation mixed
with some distinctions from Modern logic
just bear that in mind because Aristotle
himself almost certainly intended
something slightly different to this the
first type of argument Aristotle looks
at is called an enme this is a technical
term from his philosophy and is
essentially an argument that is not
deductively valid but lends Credence to
its conclusion from its premises there
are other ways that Aristotle draws this
distinction but this is the one I'm
going to be using for the sake of the
video we can look at this in contrast to
a strictly deductive argument for
instance one all men are mortal two
Socrates is a man therefore Socrates is
Mortal this is a deductive syllogism the
conclusion follows from the premises
with certainty if all men are mortal and
Socrates is a man then necessarily
Socrates is Mortal but an enthe is
slightly different their conclusions do
not follow with certainty but are
instead a little bit more like giving
evidence for a position for instance say
I am advising against Athens going to
war with Sparta I'm might make the
following case one Sparta has a stronger
Army than us two stronger armies tend to
win Wars therefore we should not go to
war with Sparta if this is analyzed as a
deductive argument then it is obviously
invalid nothing about the premises
establishes with certainty that Athens
should not go to war with Sparta
nonetheless someone having a stronger
Army than you is on the face of it a
pretty good reason not to go to war with
them as a result this is a fairly strong
enemy there is nothing wrong with the
fact that it's not deductively valid as
long as we don't trick ourselves into
thinking that the conclusion is certain
this is partly what makes the everyday
arguments we find in the world so tricky
to navigate there are a whole bunch of
premises underlying anthemes that are
often not explicitly expressed for
instance in this case we did not
explicitly say that we should only
really enter walls that we think we have
a fair chance at winning but that formed
part of the background to the
conversation an eneme is going to be
strong or weak just to the extent the
premises lend Credence to the conclusion
if we were being technical we could
probably spell this out explicitly with
some basian mathematics but instead
let's just do a straightforward example
imagine that you were a doctor in charge
of diagnosing a patient you might first
notice that they have a cough and then
come up with the loose hypothesis that
they have the flu you might then spot
that they have a fever and the extent to
which the conclusion is supported would
rise a little bit next you might
discover they have aching joints and the
enthe supporting the flu hypothesis gets
stronger and stronger this would be an
example of what Aristotle calls an enem
of signs you have set of facts Each of
which Loosely points towards a
particular conclusion but taken together
they form a very compelling reason for
believing that conclusion so the overall
message for creating strong enem memes
is simple but very effective ensure that
the totality of evidence lends more
Credence to your view than to your
opponents and that the evidence you
raise is not non sequitous to your
conclusion I also want to point out here
that Aristotle draws lots of
distinctions between different types of
enamine based on their form but
unfortunately I can't go into them all
here next Aristotle talks about the use
of examples in reasoning for Aristotle
examples seem to have two main uses the
first is simply illustrative sometimes
an example can help elucidate what you
mean in a more efficient way than simply
stating your point outright for instance
if I wanted to illustrate the stakes of
making poor tactical decisions I might
invoke the example of Napoleon's
invasion of Russia this might not
necessarily support whatever point I was
trying to make but it does communicate a
whole host of associations to do with
arrogance and the underestimation of
foes that I then don't have to
meticulously explain one by one on the
other hand a series of examples can
certainly lend support to a conclusion
provided that there is relevant
similarity between the examples raised
and the situation being discussed for
example over the past two centuries it
has become incredibly fashionable to
compare current events to those leading
up to the fall of Rome however the
persuasiveness of this comparison rests
on how genuinely similar the situations
are in relevant ways without this the
example may be emotively compelling but
it doesn't i al support the overall
points being made there's an overarching
theme here to Aristotle's discussion
that's worth bringing out when we are
dealing with arguments that are
non-deductive it is not simply a matter
of whether the argument is valid or
sound or fallacious instead we must
consider the relative Credence lent by a
particular set of premises to a
particular conclusion and then compare
that to the opposite conclusion it is
entirely possible that we could have two
equally strong entheses pointing to
contrary conclusions in the pelian war
Sparta did have a larger Army than
Athens but Athens had Naval superiority
in this case genuine uncertainty could
arise over what should be done the
evidence for and against Athens going to
war with Sparta might be weighted pretty
evenly in a roundabout way Aristotle's
discussion of practical debate does
instill a certain sense of epistemic
humility in the reader it can genuinely
arise that the enthe memes for one
position are just as strong as for
another this also ties into a broader
point of how to be a goodfaith debater
for Aristotle outlin ing one's enth
thees and examples clearly and precisely
will both help bring out their strengths
if they are genuinely powerful and
expose their weaknesses if they are poor
quality so if you are confident that you
are correct but also open to being
proven wrong then it makes sense to wear
your arguments on your sleeve in this
fashion however apart from perhaps a few
technical points you probably already
knew a lot of this the really juicy part
of Aristotle's account is how we can
best present our arguments to be most
persuasive and the first step is
understanding the emotion components to
belief formation three I've Got a
Feeling WooHoo for me the most
interesting contribution Aristotle makes
in his whole study of rhetoric is
probably in his approach to emotions and
specifically How He suggests the
rhetorician could use them to Advantage
this information is phenomenally useful
both if you're an honest debater just
trying to stir the appropriate emotion
in an audience but also to spot when
dishonest actors use this to manipulate
a crowd I cannot give a full treatment
of Aristotle's view of emotions here
because he's incredibly detailed but I
will cover his main points and give you
an idea of his General approach first
Aristotle talks of anger and calmness he
defines anger as the wish to take
revenge and says it stems from a
perception that one has been wronged or
insulted while calmness is just left to
mean a general lack of anger or a sense
that things are broadly as they should
be if anger can spur people onto action
then calm instead promotes a gentle
passivity the utility for the oror here
makes a lot of sense if you're trying to
get people to act especially in a
vengeful fashion then it would be very
useful to make them feel incredibly
angry and specifically Aristotle says
anger is best provoked by a sense of
Injustice if you convince someone that
they have been genuinely wronged then
they will be understandably Furious
again this can be used in an honest or
dishonest Fashion on the one hand if
there truly is a cause of anger because
of a severe Injustice then it's arguably
only rates that an audience be
encouraged to feel angry imagine that I
was giving a speech to a group of people
who had just had their savings stolen by
a mastermind con man but all I did was
outline exactly what had been lost in
boring and Technical fashion arguably by
leaving out the crucial fact that an
injustice had been committed I would be
obscuring the truth rather than
promoting it here the more honest thing
to do might be to let the crowd know
they can be angry on the other hand the
same skills could easily be used to
stoke and un just sense of agreement of
course this in turn will depend on
whatever ethical Theory you're using
next Aristotle talks about fear he
describes fear as a feeling of pain that
arises when danger is nearby and again
this is a stimulant to action either to
eliminate the threat or to escape it and
sometimes this only seems appropriate
someone could arouse fear in their
audience specifically so they might
treat a coming disaster with the
appropriate level of severity but also
someone else might whip a crowd into a
Terra fueled frenzy just so that can
later present themselves as the Savior
that delivered them from this imaginary
danger by contrast if you wanted to
discourage hasty decision making it is
helpful to instill a sense of confidence
in the audience to reassure them that
there is no major threat this just like
calmness is a more passive and
deliberative state after this he moves
on to discussing friendship and
hostility friendship is defined as
wishing the good of the other for their
own sake while hostility is essentially
the opposite wishing someone harm for
the very sake of that person's suffering
though Aristotle treats friendship in
more detail in his other works he says
that friendliness is engendered when we
get the idea that someone wants the best
for us or in some way shares our
interests intuitively that they are on
our team while hostility is just
begotten by the opposite it's pretty
vital that whoever you're trying to
convince views you in friendly terms you
must ensure that they know that you have
their best interests at heart are being
truthful and are only trying to help
this is one area where the honest DEA
actually has an advantage if you are
just lying or manipulating to get your
way there is always a chance that that
will be found out and this is likely to
reveal that you are a hostile element to
whoever you're trying to sway whereas at
the very least someone acting in good
faith will be able to produce convincing
evidence for that fact these emotions
can also be fired up against or in favor
of others depending on what your goals
are again it's largely a matter of
convincing someone that some third party
either wishes them well or wishes them
ill and this will largely dict at
whether they feel friendly or hostile
towards them this too can be done
honestly or dishonestly maybe someone
genuinely does wish them well or
genuinely does wish them ill but at the
same time it's very easy to seow
hostility for nefarious ends Aristotle
has a number of other emotions that he
analyzes but I want to turn to his
General approach first he notices what
each particular emotion would do for the
oror in the case of anger it promotes
vengeful action fear promotes vigilance
and Retreat friendliness promotes trust
and receptiv he will then provide a
causal story for what tends to bring
each one about injustices in the case of
anger danger in the case of fear and
shared Goodwill in the case of
friendliness this then creates a natural
set of instructions for the orator if
you want to bring about anger then you
must convince someone that there is
Injustice and if you want to promote
friendliness then you must convince them
of either your Goodwill or the goodwi of
some third party and so on but there's
also a wider Point here for Aristotle a
good rhetorician is not just someone who
is logically adept but emotionally
skilled the orator must have a highly
developed sense of empathy in order to
track the emotions of the audience or
conversational partner and move in
tandem with them but again this is a
double-edged sword just as emotional
intelligence can be used to understand
and respond it can also be used to
manipulate and in order to stir emotions
and present arguments effectively we
must also learn the ins and outs of the
audience themselves and this is where
Aristotle's next Point comes into play
four Knowing Me Knowing You aha
philosophers can have this General
tendency to conceive of themselves and
others as totally disinterested parties
floating above the world and able to
judge everything objectively there is
this General sense that the logic that
works on the goose will also suffice for
the gander and that altering an argument
or presentation for a particular
audience will only obscure the logic at
clay but Aristotle firmly disagrees in
keeping with his naturalistic views on
Humanity more generally he knows that
with different circumstances come
different prejudices biases and more and
that this is worth bearing in mind if
you are a speaker at the most basic
level it is worth being aware of where
you and your audience already agree in
the presentation of an argument in
public some premises will inevitably be
glossed over for clarity and brevity you
won't be able to argue for every
particular premise you're putting
forward because you'll just run out of
time and if you want to convince someone
of a particular view it is worth
starting from what they already believe
and working from there so if you're
giving a speech to a room full of
vegetarians you're probably pretty safe
to invoke the suffering of animals as a
premise in your argument on the other
hand if you're speaking at a conference
for devout Scholastic Catholics you
would not be wise to assume materialism
at the outset of your point if you do
want to invoke such a stance it will be
a very difficult uphill battle to have
it accepted as a premise of the
discussion equally if you're trying to
refute an opponent's position using what
Aristotle calls a reputational enemy it
is also worth starting from points they
already agree with at its best will
allow you to make a reductio ad absurdum
argument where you begin with your
opponent's beliefs and then show how
they are either outright contradictory
or just in severe tension but none of
this can be achieved if you set off with
the wrong idea of what the people you
are talking to already believe
additionally this is another vote in
favor of good faith arguing if you are
genuinely curious about what someone
thinks then you'll be able to challenge
what they actually believe rather than
some bizarre straw man straw Manning
might work in the short term if you
don't mind using it but people will
eventually catch on but separate to
these more formal concerns an audience's
preconceived biases will also affect
their particular emotional stances you
may think it is appropriate to stir them
up into anger and this as we've just
said will involve giving them a sense of
Injustice but this is not much help if
you don't know what will actually
provoke such a sense in your particular
audience additionally it may be that
your listeners are simply not easily
provoked into this feeling say they
consisted entirely of Buddhist monks if
you've already considered this then
you'll likely choose a different tactic
entirely but if you haven't then you'll
just plow on a head likely without much
effect Aristotle also asks us to
consider things like the age and social
status of our audience for him younger
people tend to be more interested in the
future while older people are more
concerned with preserving what is best
from the past those who are broadly
speaking doing quite well out of society
will be less open to changing it whereas
those who have not got a lot to lose are
going to be much more receptive to
radical shifts he thinks that recent
success is likely to bring
overconfidence while the opposite will
hold for recent failure I can't go
through everything he says here and a
lot of it probably won't hold for the
modern day but the general lesson is
quite instructive for Aristotle it is
part of the orator job to get to know
the human mind in an intimate fashion
for themselves and to know exactly who
they are trying to convince it may even
be worth us creating a sort of fictional
Avatar to stand in for the people we're
trying to reach who are we trying to
talk to what do they already believe
what are their fears values and
interests where are there biases or
blind spots we all have them again this
can be taken in both a positive and a
negative Direction it's entirely
possible to play on someone's biases so
they take a course of action that only
appears to be in their best interests
but in fact does the opposite but if
we're acting in good faith then it can
also make a sensible position Salient in
a way that speaks specifically to the
audience and if what we're saying is
true or we are genuinely acting in their
best interests then surely we want to
make it Salient so so that they follow
our advice or are convinced of our
position it's sort of the Spider-Man
school of using rhetoric with great
persuasive power comes great
responsibility but lastly Aristotle has
some brilliant miscellaneous tips for
arguing that don't fall into one neat
distinct category but are nonetheless
fantastic for General oratorical skill
five a touch of style finally Aristotle
examines how to best present an argument
in practice and he has a whole series of
strategies to engender a sense of
respect and receptiveness in your
audience the first is to balance Clarity
with eloquence on the one hand a touch
of poetic language can perk up someone's
ears and encourage them to pay attention
it's also a subtle signal to an audience
that you generally know what you're
talking about but if you use too much it
is easy to come across as excessively
verbose and basically a bit of a
bullshitter so for Aristotle poetic
language should only be used sparingly
and where it has the greatest possible
impact another strategy is to employ
metaphors and similes to communicate a
whole set of associations clearly and
concisely to take a modern example if I
say someone is a bit like Ross from
Friends most people have a pretty good
idea of the kind of person I mean
without me having to spell it out
likewise if I refer to someone as the
Einstein of the philosophy Department
then that communicates a whole suway the
rich information incredibly efficiently
similarly Aristotle encourages speakers
to use everything in their power to make
ideas not just clear but Vivid a
brilliant instance of this is found in
the brothers karamazov alosha and Ivan
are having a discussion about the
problem of evil and to hammer his idea
home Ivan tells a story of an innocent
young boy getting molded by a pack of
hunting dogs this goes beyond making the
problem of evil logically clear and
creates an impactful image to go along
with it this is part of what gives
alosha pause for thought in the
conversation this use of vividity can
also help if your opponent is employing
euphemisms it is much easier to deal
with evil if we imagine it in the
abstract than if we are examining
particular particular shocking instances
of it but since evil in the abstract is
made up of these shocking examples
arguably not to deal with them would be
missing the point Aristotle also says
that at all times we should consider the
scope of both our argument and our
opponents if we are merely talking
probabilistically then single counter
examples are often logically irrelevant
indeed they may even strengthen your
opponent's position if they're so
convoluted or obscure that they become
the exception that proves the rule these
single examples can be used to
illustrate points or as part of a larger
more comprehensive survey or to refute
absolute certainty but by themselves
their utility is pretty limited unless
you're in a deductive context if you do
raise a counter example then it is worth
explaining why the situation at hand is
much more similar to your counter
example than to the general Trend drawn
upon by your opponent for Aristotle the
careful use of emphasis is also a vital
utility amplifying your strongest and
most relevant points helps highlight
exactly what in your argument and
audience ought to hold on to and process
an awful lot of details of a speech will
be forgotten almost immediately so this
will ensure that the vital components of
your argument are remembered and
retained if at all possible he thinks it
is worth constructing your argument so
that your audience concludes at the same
time you do or around that point this
way they are not simply being told an
argument but instead they are coming to
their own thoughts about the issue which
just so happen to be the same as yours
because of the reasons that you've given
it is so much more pleasant to discover
something for self than to be lectured
at and this helps an audience be much
more sympathetic to your position lastly
we can bear in mind Aristotle's general
theory of learning here and recognize
that being persuasive like most other
skills cannot just be practiced in the
abstract by going out and having
discussions and testing different
strategies we will slowly refine our
skills learning to spot gaps in our own
thinking and that of others above all we
can turn our rhetorical devices back on
ourselves to see how our own mind works
where do our our biases manifest where
do we not recognize the structure of our
own arguments and where are we LED
astray by our own disposition towards
anger or fear or friendliness or
hostility personally I think a wonderful
reason to study the art of persuasion is
to get a better idea of how we ourselves
are persuaded thus we can use Aristotle
to strive towards that most Socratic of
ideals knowing ourselves and a good
place to start is to discover the
fallacious or underhanded tactics that
might be used to twist our Wills against
ourselves so click here to learn about
just that and stick around for more on
thinking to improve your life
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)