Comparing Isocrates And Aristotle Rhetoric

767 Words4 Pages
Isocrates and Aristotle both displayed an evident passion for this thing called “rhetoric.” Aristotle said that, “Rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion” (Aristotle, 2). Isocrates and Aristotle argued that this kind of writing was an art. By favoring an art definition over a science, they suggested that writing takes imagination as well as concentration. They illustrated that the language is constantly moving, and the mind of an author should be open and explorative. Isocrates and Aristotle both believed in the influence of sound rhetoric; furthermore, they insist upon a strategic education to further what they consider to be true rhetoric. The usefulness of rhetoric was undisputed. Sophists believed that educated men could convince the world of anything, and Aristotle and Isocrates knew that persuasion was applicable to every subject. The difference between men like Isocrates and Aristotle and the sophists was the search for truth. As a result of their philosophy behind rhetoric, they taught rhetoric differently. Regardless of how diverse they were, educators as a whole were judged based…show more content…
Most people have accepted a relative worldview, and leaders continue to impress tolerance on the upcoming generation. While it is necessary to accept disagreement, Aristotle and Isocrates challenge young people to think critically and independently. Society thrives when men and women think and speak with a gentle critique and with a unified desire for truth. If great men such as Aristotle and Isocrates displayed such a passion for rhetoric and argued for its correct teaching, contemporary authors and speakers should consider the same standard. The modern world needs less “sophists” who argue for the sake of arguing or promoting a selfish agenda, and it needs speakers who are willing to seek and defend truth – real, justified, pure
Open Document