There are several directions I am interested in pursuing in discussing Aristotle, but the one most related to our particular class focus is the way that Aristotle ties persuasion in with demonstration: “Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated.” He then discusses the difference between dialectic, which depends on syllogisms, and rhetoric, which makes more extensive use of enthymemes (a syllogism where the audience supplies one step in the logic, perhaps unconsciously). In reading this aspect of Aristotle’s thought, I realized that I have, probably naively, tended to believe/hope that if people can just be made aware of the whole truth about something, they will be persuaded (probably to think like me?!). That is, I think that if something can just be demonstrated clearly, truthfully, and well, the related persuasive point will be more easily made. If only people could read all the facts on global climate change, we would all be willing to make a difference for the environment. If only a clear case could be made for protecting helpless animals, no one would oppose Prop B, etc…
You can call me naïve, and I probably am, but I do think there is something to Aristotle’s connection between logic, demonstration, and persuasion. It is just that in our argument culture, we are so busy watching the agonistic fights that we no longer seem to have time to consider reasoned demonstrations. It is one of the things I like about Obama: his emphasis on intelligent, reasoned discourse. At the same time, we are beings who respond to pathos, as Aristotle also emphasizes, and I realize that people seem to have been more responsive to Obama when they could focus on his elegant rhetoric rather than hear from his wonky side. He has been getting kudos lately for speaking with passion again. Yet I do not want to give up hope that reasoned demonstration can actually make a difference!
