Aristotle 's Rhetorical Rhetoric On The Human Soul

Philosophers have pondered what makes for an ideal state since antiquity. In fact, the ideas theorized by the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle over two millennia ago on this subject still resonate strongly today, influencing modern political thought and regime construction. Plato contends the ideal state is one ruled by a class of guardians, or “philosopher-kings”. These philosopher-kings are selected to rule because they are best fit for the responsibility. Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, acknowledges and agrees with Plato on the point that states ruled by philosopher-kings would be ideal states, but adds such states are simply not reasonable. Instead, Aristotle advocates for rule by “polity”: a constitutional government

What is of greater underlying significance for Aristotle, however, is not so much the size of the citizen-body as the stark contrast between the respective ideas that “those constitutions which aim at the common good are right, as being in accord with absolute justice” and “those which aim only at the common good of the rulers are wrong” (The Politics, 3:6, 1279a16, p. 189). In practice, Aristotle’s juxtaposition is implicitly suggestive that if one is ruling in their own self-interest, regardless of the size of the group, and be that for themselves or the minority to which they belong, then they are in essence missing the point of what it is that they are supposed to be doing. Thus, the key point Aristotle is trying to make is this: the ruler of a polis or state; be that one person, a few people, or many people; should govern in accordance with the interests of the polis or state as a whole at heart rather than with the interests of a select few.

Two of Aristotle’s most famous works, Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, offer an outline of his perfect society and how Athens could ascend to his ideals. According to Aristotle, the strive for the most good society starts with individuals and then collectively builds up to the Chief Aim through active participation in politics. He explains that an Athenian earns his freedom and citizenship by subduing his animal instincts and passions. Instead of succumbing to these urges,

unique voices. While some philosophers have similar opinions on what it takes to be an effective leader, such as intelligence and worldliness, there are many that disagree on traits they find beneficial. The reasons for these disagreements are vast but one of the crucial factors are the societies and historical eras these authors were nurtured within. Through their own experiences with government and turmoil, philosophers are able to give their critiques on government and human nature as a whole. Socrates and Machiavelli, both philosophers in what it means to be a proper leader and the role of the people within a society, share contrasting views.

Many writers use several diverse ways to persuade readers into believing them. Some writers may tell a story, provide facts and information, or other ideas to encourage his or her reader to agree with the argument. Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle describes three diverse appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos is based on facts and reasons explaining logical arguments that rely on information and evidence. Logos is built with enough evidence, data, statistics, and reliable information. Another type of appeal is pathos, which attracts the reader’s emotions and feelings into the work. Many writers who use pathos tend to write about their personal experience and by diction and tone. In addition to logos and pathos, ethos corresponds with

In ancient Greece two great written philosophers lived. First there was Plato and then Aristotle. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato. Despite being taught by Plato they had different theories and views. Their ethics were very typical and traditional of ancient Greece but Aristotle detailed virtue ethics and the path to happiness. Plato’s political theories for a utopian society varied from Aristotle’s view of ‘best state for each society’. Their metaphysical theories are complete opposites and very contradicting. Even though Plato and Aristotle came from the same era and were closely linked they had very different philosophies.

These views were evident, and perhaps promoted, due to the continual control of government by aristocrats. These rulers sought to improve their own interests over those of the poleis, and promoted their own values and ideas. Aristotle believed that the best form of governing should be decided by those governed and, although he believed democracy to be the best of the examples of government, believed that voting would both satisfy the citizens’ desire for equality and avoid revolutions such as those that result from the tyrannies that had come before.

One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.

Since the beginning of the human’s existence, there have been so many great different concepts from various philosophers that have shaped the structure, knowledge and behaviors that we still exercise in our current world. Philosophy as the fundamental nature of knowledge has contributed to the development of our thoughts and the structure of our societies. Many great philosophers left the presence of their idea implanted in our world for the rest of human life. One central leader that contributed in the philosophical views of ideas, realism and morality of life was the greatest philosopher of all time “Aristotle”. This essay will focus on two of Aristotle’s major impact on today’s society. These two great essays are, “The Politics” and “The Nicomachean Ethics”. Aristotle influenced by previous work from his professor the great philosopher Plato developed ideas of moralities, virtues and ethics of how man should best live, how can we find the truth also how can we explain the world around us. Throughout history there have been many philosophers who have tried to shape the world with their philosophical concepts to make an action a universal law of morality that gives us options to choose a freely moral or legal alternative rather than another one. The concepts revealed by Aristotle’s work have inculcated the way we actually behave and apply ethics to our everyday duties that would lead us to the supreme good “Eudaimonia” ‘Human Flourishing’, happiness. All theories

In 323 B.C., the Hellenic Humanistic civilization came to an end, and Hellenistic individualism was born. Hellenistic individualism was everything that Hellenic Greece was not. This new time period would be described as “Greekish” because it was not purely Greek in culture (Humanities, 83). Before the Individualistic era began, the civilization was united in language, philosophy and religion, having a strong historical impact that connected them. Hellenistic individualism was created in a time of loneliness and isolation. When the polis were replaced, individualism emerged, because people were searching for continuity, they were searching for identity through the individual (Humanities, 91). I will be contrasting the different viewpoints from Hellenic Age and the Hellenistic Age; focusing on the philosophy of Aristotle, the philosophy of Epicurus and the new art form.

What is a soul? The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal regarded as immortal. Many Philosophers studied the soul in several ways in order to get the point of what is the soul. Although sometimes it is confusing to understand what is meant because it is explained in other ways and used in examples. The Philosopher Aristotle came to the conclusion that the soul is the first grade of actuality of a natural organized body. He uses it in the axe and eye as examples but yes it might be confusing but at the end it will make sense in what he means.

During the 4th Century B.C, Aristotle rose as a critic of direct democracy based on two grounds: are all individuals qualified to govern? Should we select a few individuals who are fit for leadership? Bernard Crick writes, “ while democracy was for him a necessary condition for good government, it was far from a sufficient condition”(Crick 1). Aristotle had a negative outlook on human nature. This led to his belief on how a government system should rule and the dismissal of a direct democracy. Similarly to Ancients, Aristotle believed that a ‘direct democracy’ would only crumble. For this reason, he introduced ‘Checks and balances’. Checks and balances gave limited power to each branch of power and to the people. He identified his a polity by representative government, balanced government, and a mixed government. Representative government is one ruled by a ‘leader’. And yet, he questioned the idea of placing trust in the hands of the uneducated, incompetent. More importantly, he believed that in order to be a leader, one must meet the five characteristics to be considered a ‘leader’. The characteristics required: intelligence, knowledge, experience, wisdom, and virtue. It was especially important for one to attain wisdom because that is the end result of knowledge

As well as being a devoted biologist, botanist, moral philosopher, psychologist, zoologist and many more things besides Aristotle held a view about human nature that he interwove into his concept of virtue theory, this is described at some length in the text Nicomachean Ethics. It is this view on human nature that I intend to explain and discuss throughout this essay with reference to some more recent philosophers to show that Aristotle’s view was not only linked directly to Athenian society but has managed to stand the test of time. A point I will return to later in a yet to posted article ‘Can we Consider Modern Ethics to be Aristotelian or Nietzschean?’, this article is much better written and argues the points in greater detail. I must admit this was in fact a very early work of mine and although some editing has been made it still lacks the strength some of my later pieces possess.

Plato was a mentor of Aristotle lending ideas to his student about composition and operation of citizens, city state, and political regimes. Although Aristotle criticized Plato’s notion of ranking democracy at a fourth position out of five competing systems of government, he agreed with Plato that democracy is the corrupt form of government as it violates justice of proportionality. The concept of justice of proportionality is to answer who is the most deserving. This is explained in an analogy of whoever deserves the best flute. A rich or a handsome man have no business with the flute, but the best flute player does. Similarly, in political competition, according to Plato, the man most deserving to rule is the either a philosophers king or for Aristotle, the most educated man in the field of politics.

Before a serious investigation of any aspect of Aristotle’s political theories is undertaken, we must take a moment to acknowledge that many of the institutions and doctrines he defends have been repudiated in modern political thought. In fact many such institutions are appalling and simply morally wrong. One such institution is slavery. Aristotle argues in the Politics that slavery is just. No argument is needed to conclude that Aristotle made a terrible ethical and moral error in defending slavery. Further we must accept that the argument of the abolition of slavery was available to him as his defense of slavery is in response to critics who claim slavery is unjust. What sparks intriguing debate is questioning why