Aristotle and the Uses of Argument

I found it interesting to read Aristotle having read a few articles and Tannen on Argument. Those readings mostly maintained that argument has to be reconciliatory. This notion of argument builds on the necessity to understand others’ position/s. But when viewed from the perspective of ancient rhetoric, one might question the productivity of such argumentation. In fact there are people who argue against that mode of argumentation (like Williams and McGee have mentioned in their article). I found Aristotle’s rhetoric worth-relating to those discussions.

A guiding principle behind any argument is that we can reach a higher truth through deliberation – even the effort to defeat the opponent is an effort to establish a truth, own truth. And Aristotle’s belief is that truth does win at the end. Hence the belief that argument leads to the ultimate truth. Aristotle says that rhetoric is useful for a number of reasons: 1. Truth has a natural tendency to prevail, but if it does not, it is the fault of judges. So rhetoric can help truth prevail, 2. Some audiences cannot be instructed; in this situation rhetoric can be used to persuade them, 3. No other art can draw opposite conclusions but dialectic and rhetoric; but it is easier to prove what is true, 4. Rational speech is a distinctive quality of a human being. He also says that it is possible to abuse argument against its proper use on the side of truth and justice. However, it is also true that it is only through rhetoric/ argument that can establish truth.

And I think that only an open practice of rhetoric, not to mean combative, but the one that is practiced with an open mind may help is use argument as a productive tool.