Empedocles (ca.

490–430 BC)
Empedocles (Εμπεδοκλής) and his contribution to rhetoric

by Adriana Luna – Díaz

Empedocles was a Greek philosopher that lived in Agrigento in the V

Century who is better known for postulating the theory of the “four roots”
which says that everything in the world is made of water, fire, airther and
earth, united or separated by the two big forces, Love (Philia) and Strife
(Neikos).

Although Empedocles did not make any direct reference to it, nor
address language’s power, nor offer a theory of discourse, Aristotle
considered him as the “father” of Rhetoric because a careful study of the
remaining fragments of his work reveal the subjacent principles of
rhetoric in his poems, and a look at his biography places him as a man of
words who resisted the cruel sovereignty of his through speech. The
object of his written legacy was the nature of things and at this point, it is
important to set him in the context of his time; for the ancient Greeks,
rhetoric was related to poetry, healing, and magic, and hence, combining
these components, this poet and physician-magus created this art to use
the power of discourse to compel the healing of body and society

Perception and speech

According to the theory of the “four roots”, mixtures of these
elements combined in different ways to form living beings in different
stages, for example, perception and cognition, as well as respiration,
involve the exchange between blood and air. In consequence, the human
understanding is limited by “what is present for direct interaction” and,
this means that the discourse will only reach the audience if the words
employed are part of something that the listeners know in advance, in
other words, he advocate for finding different models of speech for
different types of audience.
 Nevertheless, he recognizes that there are ideas so subjective that
“It is not achievable that we should approach with our eyes or grasp with
our hands, by which the greatest road of persuasion extends to men’s
thought organ (brain)”. In such cases he invokes the power of persuasion
through “faith”, he stated: “bad men are strongly inclined to disbelieve
the strong (truth)”, in consequence the logical demonstration was not
enough and the orator should turn to the “faith” or emotion, making use
of the Love (attraction) that the words can exert when they are used with
wisdom, g to provoke a communion between the speaker and the
listeners. This strategy is what in the current rhetoric theory is known as
Pathos.

Bibliography
Choi, Chul-Byung (2001) “Platonic and Sophistic Understanding of Oral,
Literal and Televisual Sign as Educational Means”, Asia Pacific Education
Review, Vol. 2, p.p. 15 - 27

Gencarella, Stephen Olbrys, (2010) 'Purifying Rhetoric: Empedocles and

the Myth of Rhetorical Theory', Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 96, p.p.
231 — 256

Peter Kingsley, (2008), Empédocles y la tradición pitagórica, Ed.

Atalanta
 Isocrates (436 BC – 338 BC)
“If all who are engaged in the profession of education were willing to
state the facts instead of making greater promises than they can
possibly fulfill, they would not be in such bad repute with the lay-
public.”

by Victoria Wyllie-Echeverria

Isocrates was born in the ancient Greek city of Athens to a wealthy

flute-maker and his wife. The family’s position in society allowed him the
chance at an exceptional education in both traditional methods and the
new idea of ‘sophistic learning’ or rhetoric. When Isocrates was a young
man, his family experienced a financial crisis, which lead to him
supporting himself writing documents to be used in court cases, and
eventually allowed him to expand into a teaching and writing career. He
was thought to be in ill health and shy, so a large part of his contribution
to rhetoric has been through writing essays on education, politics, critical
reviews of other rhetoricians and forensic speeches. He quickly rose to
prominence, particularly through his political and educational writings,
and was numbered as one of the ‘Ten Attic Orators”.
Similar to many other rhetoricians of the time, Isocrates’ organized a
school wherein he taught young students to appreciate the form of
rhetoric. His school was renowned for his progressive ideas on education-
not teaching students simply about rhetoric, but merging it with ethics
and politics, with an emphasis on morals, to prepare his students more
fully for their future lives. Isocrates believed that in order for the next
generation to be properly educated, they needed a depth to their
learning, to have appropriate behavior not only in their public life, but
their private life as well – ideas did not have value simply as ideas, but
must be recognized in the real world, and must have a practical
implication.
Isocrates’ writings are characterized as being outstanding works of
art, with elegant, long, sinuous sentences worked into an intricate piece
of writing. However, it has been noted that sometimes the lucidity of his
texts were lost to the pureness of the form. His writing has been
described at ‘Attic prose at its most elaborate’. In short, Isocrates not
only embodied rhetoric prose as an art form, but also was responsible for
vast changes in the educational system in ancient Greece.
 Plato (427-347 BC)
“Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.”

by Katherine Baldwin-Corriveau

A noted philosopher and mathematician, Plato persuasively talked

and wrote his way to the hearts and minds of Ancient Greeks from 427 BC
to 347 BC. Even today, over 2300 years later, he remains in our modern
society one of primary pillars in the development of rhetoric, the art of
communicating effectively and convincingly.

Plato was not a “rags to riches” kind of guy. Rather, from a very
young age, he was instructed in grammar, music, gymnastics, and
philosophy. Moreover, it is said that his childhood lips were unnaturally
attractive to bees, who would come to rest on them as he slept. It is thus
likely that these social insects contributed greatly to the eventual
sweetness of his manner of discourse. As he grew older and the bees
outgrew their affinity for his mouth, Plato became the student of
Socrates, a master philosopher and “rhetorist”, who played a
monumental role in Plato’s own success in philosophy and poetry.

Though he is known today for his talent in the art of rhetoric, Plato
was not always a fan of this term. In fact, he often criticized rhetoric for
being untruthful and at times, little more than flattery – “the art of
enchanting the soul”. He greatly preferred the art of dialectic to that of
rhetoric, as this form of communication focused on stirring the intellect
rather than the emotions of man, allowing individuals to come to a
reasoned conclusion. However, Plato has been accused of hypocrisy in
these statements, as regardless of whether he believed it or not, he
excelled in rhetorical performances, and many of his greatest works can
be considered as such.

In light of this, perhaps Plato’s greatest contribution to rhetoric was

his belief in using persuasive discourse to “rule” and “enchant” not only
the hearts and souls of men, but their intellect and reason as well. After
all, an argument that draws you in both emotionally and logically is far
more enticing than one that plays entirely on one sense or the other. As
Plato himself proved many a time, this tactic, if used skillfully and with
the help of a few friendly bees, can truly allow one to “rule the minds of
men”.
 Aristotle (384-322 BC)
by Hannah Roessler

Plato, the Classic Greek philosopher, initially rejected rhetoric, deeming

it unworthy of study because it was so easily applied to nefarious purposes.
He later modified his view, acknowledging that in the hands of the right
practitioner rhetoric could be a valuable contribution to discourse. This
opened the doors for his student Aristotle to freely explore rhetoric and
ultimately publish one of the best known treatises on the subject,
establishing him as the utmost authority in this area. Aristotle’s
contribution to this field was so significant, that it is generally believed that
most subsequent dialogue on rhetoric is a response to or reflection on
Aristotle’s writings.

Aristotle identified rhetoric as one of the most important elements of

philosophy, and posited it as the counterbalance to Dialectic. He wrote The
Rhetoric, three voluminous texts that explore the blending of “thought” and
“style” in order to create a persuasive argument. He defines rhetoric as
“the ability to see what is possibly persuasive in every given case” (Rhet.
I.2, 1355b26f.) It is the goal of the rhetorician to discover the means of
persuasion, though it may not mean that they are able to convince
everyone in their audience.

Aristotelian rhetoric is different from earlier forms in that it is not

primarily rooted in slander, arousal or distraction as means for convincing
the audience. The Aristotelian flavour is based on the enthymeme, which
takes the form of a deductive argument, with a premise and conclusion.
Rather than appealing to the emotional side of the audience so much so
that they make irrational judgments, Aristotelian rhetoric focuses on
persuasive proofs which can be understood rationally but are still
emotionally compelling.

There are three means of engaging persuasion according to Aristotle i)

through the character of the speaker (ethos), ii) the emotions of the listener
(pathos) or iii) the actual argument (logos). Through the establishment of
intelligent character, or ethos, the speaker posits herself as a reliable
source. If the speaker is able to engage the emotions of the listener, or
pathos, the audience will be more interested and even complicit in the
examination and contemplation of the topic at hand. Finally, if the speaker
demonstrates a logical progression through the argument, it will be easier
for the listener to accept what is being said. According to Aristotle, an
argument to be convincing and persuasive, all three of ethos, pathos and
logos need to be employed.
 Cicero (106-43 BC)
Cicero’s Liberal Arts Legacy

by Kim Carlson

The great Roman philosopher, statesman, and lawyer, Marcus Tullius

Cicero, is widely considered one of ancient Rome’s greatest orators. He is
best known for the impassioned speeches he gave in favor of a return to
a Roman republic government, but he also wrote key essays on the art of
rhetoric. He was a prolific letter writer as well. His vast correspondence
with his friend Atticus introduced the European cultures to the art of fine
letter writing. Cicero’s influence has lasted well beyond his life in first
century B.C. Rome. The rediscovery of his letters centuries after his
death is often credited with initiating the Renaissance in 14th century
Europe. A few centuries later, Cicero’s written works dealing with the
defense of the Roman republic inspired leaders of both the American and
French Revolutions who became fired up to defend their own new
republics after reading of Cicero’s passion for liberty.

The written works of Cicero have proven to be very influential into

modern times as well. Rhetorica ad Herrenium and its companion book,
De Inventione, were the two basic texts on rhetorical theory during the
Middle Ages and the Renaissance, and are still widely used as references
for the use of rhetoric today. In addition to his vast written works,
Cicero’s greatest legacy to the art of rhetoric is his argument that orators
must be knowledgeable about all areas of human culture including law,
politics, history, literature, ethics, medicine, warfare, and mathematics.
Cicero believed that the ideal orator would not only learn about the
specifics of their case (the “hypothesis”), but would also learn about the
general questions from which their specific cases were derived (the
“theses”). This idea became known as “liberal humanism”—the art of
being well-versed in all branches of learning. This principle is the driving
force behind the liberal arts and general education curriculums of
colleges and universities across the world today.
 Quintilian (35-100 AD)
by Val Ethier

A Roman rhetorician prominent nearly two millennia ago, Quintilian’s

contribution to the study was a process by which to achieve his ideal
goal: for one to become a good man, skilled in speaking well. Quintilian
did not claim originality, but rather drew from a variety of sources to
develop his guidelines; Cicero is prominent among these. He brought
together teachings from ancient Greece and Roman rhetoric in the
previous century. He sought strip down oratory from what had become
embellished language and define the art of communication using clarity,
precision and simple speech. Ironically, these rules filled twelve books
called the Instituto Oratoria.

Quintilian stressed the importance of education, starting at an early

age and incorporating all forms of knowledge, with speaking, writing and
reading as the most important. Imitation was not considered an effective
form of education; rather these skills must be developed with an
expansive knowledge of a broad range of subjects. Although the focal
subject must be known in greater depth, Quintilian considered this bank
of information useful for examples, rules, sayings, laws and facts for the
speaker to have at the ready to support their argument.

In addition to this total comprehension and oratory ability, the

speaker must have a high moral character. Quintilian claimed that
rhetoric is a tool that serves the public good and therefore must be used
by those with ethical appeal. The traditional foundations Quintilian
addressed and which became the canon for rhetorical teaching are:
invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery. The first three
elements are vital for the development, organization and eloquence of
one’s argument in order to produce the greatest effect. Rather than rote
memorization, the fourth element involves recall of the argument as well
as the supporting body of evidence and that for refuting opposing
arguments. Body and voice are important in delivery, as the audience will
decide what is sincere and pleasing by the tone and movement of the
speaker. Each of these elements must be considered and mastered in
order to develop and present a persuasive argument. Practice and
rehearsal are the only methods by which one can become proficient in
these crucial skills and elements.
 Francis Bacon (1561–1626)
by Thiago Gomes

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was an English renaissance lawyer,

statesman, essayist, historian, intellectual reformer, and philosopher. In
his investigations, Bacon dedicated special attention to revaluating and
re-structuring the established tradition and methods of learning,
introducing empiric and inductive methods of inquiry. Bacon is considered
the father of empiricism; therefore, played a crucial role in the
development of modern science.
Instauratio Magna (The Great Instauration) is an uncompleted series
of treatises that challenge Aristotelian syllogism and advocates for “new
instruments” (Novum Organum) that would transcend and replace the
older tools. As part of this instauration, Bacon addresses characteristic
errors and natural tendencies that beset the mind and prevent it from
achieving full and accurate understanding of nature – thus responsible for
errors in science. Bacon classifies these problems in four different idols:
(1) idols of the tribe – natural weaknesses and tendencies of human
nature (limited senses, impose order, “wishful thinking”, rush to
conclusion), (2) idols of the cave – distortions from the cultural
environment (allegiance to particular theories or authorities), (3) idols of
market place – hindrances that result from associations with one another
(misuse of language, jargons), (4) idols of theatre –culturally acquired
artificial imitation of truth (systems of philosophy not clearly
demonstrated, i.e.: sophism, superstition). Associated with the idols,
Bacon identifies a series of “distempers” of learning, such as “fantastical
learning”, “contentious learning”, “vain imaginations”, “vain altercations”
and “vain affectations”, that would result in a pseudo-science, with sterile
outcomes and waste of talent. All these foundations support the Baconian
method, which is based on observational and experimental measures,
subject of a “newer tool”, the inductive procedure. Induction, according to
Bacon, is necessary for the proper interpretation of nature. The
investigation of a phenomenon is based on the register of its (1)
presence, (2) absence, or (3) variation, so it is possible to rank the lists to
explain what factors influenced its occurrence. Baconian inductive
method works like a “ladder of intellect”, whereas observation and
experimentation are carried regularly and gradually for each axiom
before the next step is taken. In fact, each confirmed axiom becomes a
foothold to a higher truth. However, this method mistakenly considers
hypothesis a natural result of ordered disposition of data, which rarely
occurs. Baconian method differs from current scientific method (Karl
Popper) mainly because of emphasis on verification rather than
elimination.
Knowledge is power. Bacon suggested a whole new system, based on
the production of practical knowledge, for “the use and benefit of men”.
The ideas of technological progress and the concept of applied sciences
are embedded in this cosmology.
 Hobbes (1588–1679)
Hobbling Through Hobbes: A Layman’s Summary of Hobbes on
Rhetoric

by Jason Straka

Thomas Hobbes has been painted as a somewhat paradoxical figure

in the secondary literature, particularly with reference to his stance on
rhetoric (Johnston 1986, Sorell 1990, Skinner 1996, Springborg 2009).
Many discussions of Hobbes and rhetoric note what seems to be a
dramatic change between his early writings (The Art of Rhetoric, based on
translations of Aristotle; The Elements of Law; and De Cive or The Citizen)
and his later works (particularly Leviathan) (Skinner 1996).
In his early writings, Hobbes clearly criticized what was at that time a
highly fashionable “humanist” view on rhetoric (Skinner 1996). Similar to
Aristotle, he initially promoted the stance that judgements could and
should be made based on the careful evaluation of logical syllogisms
(Sorrell 1990). He argued that, given a sequence of clear, scientifically
established “truths,” the person acting as judge could not help but arrive
at the correct conclusion (Sorell 1990, Skinner 1996). Further, he argued
that the “political sciences” could be lumped with “natural sciences” in
that arguments could be framed based on common experience in order to
“teach” somebody to reach the correct conclusion, rather than having to
convince them (Sorrell 1990, Skinner 1996). This also gave rise to his
later argument that a rational political authority could (and should) be
established (Johnston 1986). This contrasted with humanist perspectives
that (in their extreme form) placed greater weight on truth being defined
by consensus, and the power of convincing discourse through various
elements of style (Skinner 1996).
In his later writings, Hobbes began to tackle difficult philosophical
questions (morality, political responsibilities, religion), but did so in a
manner that was much less direct (Skinner 1996). This is because, in his
later works, Hobbes displayed extreme skill in using many elements of
the art of Renaissance-style rhetoric such as humour (ridicule, satire, and
irony), and eloquence; he began to use the techniques of rhetoric that he
had previously criticized or dismissed as unnecessary in the face of
objective, scientific truths (Johnston 1986). It has been argued that it is
difficult to trace to what degree Hobbes’s use of rhetoric in this case
explains his philosophical stance on rhetoric; Skinner (1996) noted
Hobbes’s affinity for satire, but that it was difficult for modern scholars to
tell whether the content, the language, or both were the target of satire.
This intriguing change of stance has been attributed to Hobbes’s
ultimate differentiation between the “natural” sciences and “social”
sciences; while it is more straightforward to make arguments based on
logical syllogisms in sciences, political arguments are more difficult to
frame in terms of a series of deductive arguments that people can follow
(Sorell 1990). Even when the facts are clear, the use of rhetorical “arts”
can greatly enhance one’s power to convince (Johnston 1986).

References:
Johnston, D. (1986). The rhetoric of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes and the
politics of culturaltransformation. Princeton University Press.

Skinner, Q. (1996). Reason and rhetoric in the philosophy of Hobbes.

Cambridge University Press.

Sorell, T. (1990). Hobbes’ss UnAristotelian Political Rhetoric. Philosophy &

Rhetoric, 23, 96 108.

Springborg, P. (2009). The Paradoxical Hobbes. Political Theory, 37, 676

-688.
 Marshall McLuhan (1911 - 1980)
Marshall McLuhan’s Influences on Rhetoric

by Leigh Joseph

Marshall McLuhan was born in 1911 in Edmonton, Alberta. He studied

English at the University of Manitoba and completed his graduate and
doctoral work at Cambridge. McLuhan’s doctoral dissertation surveyed
the history of the verbal arts, collectively known as the trivium, which
includes grammar, logic and rhetoric. McLuhan used the concept of the
trivium to outline an orderly and systematic picture of certain periods in
the history of Western culture through his later works in life. McLuhan’s
major career focus was on media analysis. In 1964 he published the book
Understanding Media which turned out to be one of the major
contributions of his career. Understanding Media examined the media
effects that pervade society and culture and was aligned with McLuhan’s
assertion that media was a technological extension of the body.

Four major themes that have been identified in McLuhan’s work are:
1. The media is a broad explanatory basis for historical and cultural
change. 2. Media is an extension of man. 3. Media can be classified as hot
or cool. 4. Man explains change in rearview mirrorism. McLuhan’s book
The Medium is the Massage explored the pervasiveness of media in our
lives on many different levels. McLuhan emphasized that the important
thing is how one communicates, not what they are communicating. Thus
the McLuhanism “the medium is the message” speaks to the importance
of the tools that are chosen to present a message. McLuhan was trained
in the traditional form of the trivium and his work contributed to rhetoric
through the intensive consideration and analysis of media as a form of
persuasive communication. McLuhan’s work also emphasized the shift
between oral traditions to written and phonetic traditions and how this
shift paralleled the transition between what McLuhan defined a gradient
from tribalized man to de-tribalized man and on to re-tribalized man. He
used this gradient to outline how communication, and the senses that we
rely on to communicate, have changed. He argued that when we moved
from an oral/aural system to a phonetic system of communication that
the tools we used to communicate persuasively changed. McLuhan
argued that living in an electronic age would move us towards the re-
tribalized society meaning that we’ve moved away from the
compartmentalized and individualistic aspects of the de-tribalized man
into a “global village” created through the electronic age of
communication.

McLuhan based his commentary on the use of different forms of

media as powerful communication tools on his foundations of the trivium
of grammar, logic, and rhetoric and used the analysis of media to change
how rhetoric is defined in a contemporary sense.
 Bruno Latour (1947- )
Bruno Latour and the Rhetoric of Science

by Lindsay Monk

If rhetoric is understood as the ends and means of persuasion, then

those studying the rhetoric of science posit that, far from being an
objective body of knowledge of the natural world, science itself is also an
exercise in persuasion.

"Scientist and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they
have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives,
they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their
favor." Famously declaring his Second Principle in his 1987 book Science
in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Bruno
Latour has played a significant role in the development of the rhetoric of
science and remains a prominent theorist in the field of science and
technology studies.

Born in France in 1947, Latour trained as a sociologist and

anthropologist and has taught at the École des Mines de Paris (Centre de
Sociologie de l’Innovation) and the Institut d’études politiques de Paris.
He has published several influential books on studies of scientific practice
and is one of the primary developers of actor-network theory (ANT).

Latour’s major contributions to rhetoric surround his understanding

of science as a cultural activity and one that is not accepted based on
objective data but instead through the use of rhetoric. Latour gained
prominence with the publication of Laboratory Life: the Social
Construction of Scientific Facts (with Steve Woolgar) in 1979. Through an
ethnographic study of a research laboratory, Latour and Woolgar argued
that a typical experiment produces only inconclusive data and that a
large part of scientific training consists of learning to make the subjective
decision of what data to throw out and what to keep. Latour followed up
these themes with The Pasteurization of France in 1984. By pursuing a
political biography of Louis Pasteur, Latour argues that Pasteur’s theories
were accepted more readily in some quarters than in others and that this
is due to ideological differences, seeking to show that the acceptance or
rejection of scientific theories is in fact a social construct and is not based
primarily on the evidence at hand. Thus, for Latour, science is ultimately
dependent upon rhetoric for its success.

Latour is also well known as one of the primary developers of actor-

network theory during the 1980s and 1990s and has published several
influential books including Science in Action, Pandora’s Hope, and We
Have Never Been Modern (1991).