How to Win Any Debate (Without Being an A**hole)

Summary

This 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

00:00

📚 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.

05:01

🗣️ 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.

10:02

🧡 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.

15:03

🤝 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.

20:04

🎨 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.

25:05

🌟 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.

Keywords

💡Sophist

A sophist refers to an individual skilled in rhetoric and argumentation, often associated with the use of clever but sometimes deceptive reasoning. In the video, the term is used to contrast with the ideal of honest thinkers, highlighting the historical debate over the value of public debate and the potential for sophistry in the realm of rhetoric.

💡Dialectical discussion

Dialectical discussion is a form of conversational exchange that aims to explore the truth through the exchange of reasoned arguments. The video mentions Plato's view that true philosophy occurs in private dialectical discussions, as opposed to public debates, which he saw as the domain of sophists.

💡Rhetoric

Rhetoric is the art of persuasive speaking or writing, often associated with the use of figures of speech and psychological appeals. The video discusses Aristotle's approach to rhetoric, aiming to transform it into a tool for good faith philosophical study and highlighting its potential for both honest and dishonest persuasion.

💡Enthymeme

An enthymeme is a rhetorical syllogism that is not deductively valid but provides probabilistic reasoning to support a conclusion. The script uses the example of advising against war based on the strength of an enemy's army to illustrate how an enthymeme provides evidence rather than certainty.

💡Persuasiveness

Persuasiveness refers to the ability to influence the beliefs or actions of others through argumentation. The video emphasizes the importance of understanding persuasiveness as a practical skill, discussing how Aristotle believes it is worthwhile to study because people are persuaded by a variety of factors.

💡Emotion

Emotion plays a significant role in belief formation and decision-making. Aristotle's approach to rhetoric, as discussed in the video, includes the strategic use of emotions such as anger, fear, and friendliness to influence an audience's receptiveness to an argument.

💡Epistemic humility

Epistemic humility is the recognition of the limits of one's knowledge and the understanding that strong arguments can be made for multiple positions. The video suggests that Aristotle's discussion of debate instills a sense of epistemic humility, acknowledging the complexity of non-deductive arguments.

💡Goodwill

Goodwill, in the context of rhetoric, refers to the positive feelings or trust an audience has towards the speaker. The video explains that fostering goodwill is essential for persuading an audience, as it is more effective to convince someone who views you as friendly and having their best interests at heart.

💡Straw man

A straw man is a common fallacy where an argument is misrepresented to make it easier to refute. The video warns against using straw men in debate, advocating for good faith arguing where one challenges what an opponent actually believes rather than a distorted version.

💡Vividness

Vividness refers to the clarity and impact with which an idea is communicated. The video discusses how Aristotle encourages the use of vivid language and examples to make arguments more memorable and impactful, such as using metaphors or creating a clear image in the mind of the audience.

💡Eloquence

Eloquence is the quality of expressing thoughts in a clear, persuasive, and appealing manner. The script mentions that Aristotle advises balancing clarity with eloquence, using poetic language sparingly to enhance the persuasive power of an argument without overwhelming the audience.

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