Oh Aristotle- How I want to support thee

Aristotle is a man who is full of ideas. He seems to believe wholeheartedly in his assertions which are soOooOOo totalizing and positivist that the frameworks he sets up and the rational(s) in which everything is pinned, ultimately leave little room for discussion. Including a conversation about arguing differently.

This is not to say that we can't discuss alternatives and that there isn't room for discussion; what I am positioning is that if I could sit and chat with him (would he even due to my vagina?) about rhetoric and argumentation I would be quite curious for how much he would be willing to flex, how much he would be willing to concede, and whether or not he would acknowledge that there are other ideas out there about happiness, why people do harm to others, that there may be more than two kinds of right and wrong towards others, that unjust actions may be divided into more than "two classes", that maybe everyone doesn't get a sense of pleasure from vengeance, etc. Ultimately, I question: Would he deviate from his passionate assertive Truths? As his work suggests, I am guessing no- even if I used his own framework to negate his affirmations I am guessing it may fall on deaf ears.

This is a point of concern for arguing differently. If this is what the "West" understands, and if this is what is the framework from which many other argumentation and rhetorical theories are based....then... what room is there for other voices? Other interpretations? Other practices?

After reading Aristotle I walk away with a mixed bag of feelings and knowledge(s). As a scholar and as someone that respects passionate convictions I most certainly respect him and his influence on the study of rhetoric. However, as someone who is critical of totalizing and positivistic claims (especially in such areas of research as rhetoric), as well as exclusionary frameworks (for example his role as a White Heteropatriarch which distinctly excludes people based on sex, gender, class, and race), I am very weary of his frameworks and my practical application of Aristotelian rhetorical methods. I, in a way, even feel guilty for having subscribed to his frameworks of rhetoric up until this point. As a communication instructor, for example, I have been regurgitating ethos, pathos, and logos in my instruction for years, and I am beginning to wonder if this is appropriate. Have we been misusing Aristotle? Have we reinvented his work today so that it barely resembles his original intentions? Am I reinstilling violent frameworks for others to follow? Have I caused damage because of this?

I am left with these thoughts, more than a passionate celebration of Aristotelian rhetoric.