Rhetoric: Will We Ever Understand?

Like Socrates and Gorgias disputed, it can definitely be said that the art of rhetoric—the successful execution of persuasion—is far more vital than a physician’s power of persuasion. Even today, when the vast majority of our rhetoric is found via the Internet and the media, we can see the power of rhetoric still working its ageless magic in our digitalized world. I believe that this is the “powerful art” that J. Kastely was speaking of when he said, “If you have an art that allows you to be reformed as the situation changes, you have a powerful art.” The art of rhetoric has thrived through the centuries and has adapted to each world in between.

A good rhetor must be able to persuade an audience, not just speak to the audience. A week ago, my roommate asked me what rhetoric is, and I wasn’t able to answer him. I’m not sure if I will ever have a solid answer to this infinitively dense question, as the nuances seem to nudge me off balance as soon as I think I have a lead. One of said leads is when Socrates, who seemed just as confused as myself, said to Gorgias in an attempt to make sense of his words, “Then rhetoric, as would appear, is the artificer of a persuasion which creates belief about the just and unjust, but gives no instruction about them? …And the rhetorician does not instruct the courts of law or other assemblies about things just and unjust, but he creates belief about them; for no one can be supposed to instruct such a vast multitude about such high matters in a short time?” These questions kill me. This is information on morality, but without the instructions included. This seems just so contradictory to me.

When my roommate asked me what rhetoric is, I responded that I thought it was the words chosen while speaking, (which was about 30% correct), but I would have never thought that rhetoric would have had anything to do with philosophy. If rhetoric is the art of persuasion and diction, where does it fit with morality? This is one of the confusing factors that I’ve been stuck on.

Gorgias goes on to explain to Socrates that rhetoricians are the advisors in the court of law who “win their point.” That part makes sense to me, but what I do not understand is that blurred line where Gorgias says that rhetoric must not be used for evil purposes, but then jumps into the grey again saying that a rhetor is merely a tool to win arguments.

Another confusing factor for me is when Gorgias says that rhetoric is something that can be learned, but from my experiences, it seems like the people with the most fluent rhetoric are the people who are naturally charismatic (i.e. politicians, leaders, my little sister, and etcetera). Charismatic people are people with a specific personality type; this is something they are born with, not something they learn. I am not saying that I believe that rhetoric is only taught to a select group of people, or that I think that only a select group of people are capable of learning it. I am simply saying that I am struggling with the overall concept of rhetoric. I’ll come back to this at the end of the semester and I bet I will be able to make more sense of this topic. But for now, comments are appreciated!