Abstract
In an ideal world, where all men would be fully rationalist philosophers and scientific, absolute knowledge about reality obtainable, there would be no need for debate on the basis of reasonableness, and therefore, also from an Aristotelian point of view, no need for rhetoric. This is the — intended — bewildering conclusion of the following paradoxical argument by the Stoic philosopher Zeno, directed against the age-old rule that the two sides in a controversy should be heard before giving a verdict:
“Against the person who said ‘don’t give your verdict until you have heard both sides,’ Zeno argues as follows: the second speaker is not to be heard whether the first speaker proved their case (for then the inquiry is at an end), or they did not prove it (for this is tantamount to their not having appeared when summoned, or to their having responded to the summons with mere prattle). But either they proved their case or they did not. Therefore the second speaker is not to be heard.” (Plutarch, On Stoic Self-Contradictions, 1034 e)1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Berger, P., & Th. Luckmann (1991 (= 1966)). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin Books. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Bons, J.A.E. (1996). Poietikon Pragma: Isocrates’ Theory of Rhetorical Composition. With a Rhetorical Commentary on the “Helen.” Diss. Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
Brunschwig, J.(1996). Aristotle’s Rhetoric as a “Counterpart” to Dialectic. In: A. Oksenberg-Rorty, Essays on Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” (pp. 34–55). Berkeley etc.: University of California Press.
Burnyeat, M.F. (1994). Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion. In: D.J. Furley, & A. Nehamas (Eds.), Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Philosophical Essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Burnyeat, M.F. (1996). Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Rationality of Rhetoric. In: A. Oksenberg-Rorty, Essays on Aristotle’s “Rhetoric “ (pp. 88–115). Berkeley etc.: University of California Press.
Cooper, L. (1960 (= 1932)). The Rhetoric of Aristotle. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall (New York/London: Appleton).
Goebel, G.H. (1989). Probability in the Earliest Rhetorical Theory. Mnemosyne42, 41–53.
Gould, Th. (1970). Oedipus the King, by Sophocles. A Translation with Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Green, L. (1990). Aristotelian Rhetoric, Dialectic, and the Tradition of antistrophos. Rhetorica8, 5–28.
Grimaldi, W.M.A. SJ (1972). Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Grimaldi, W.M.A. SJ (1980). Aristotle: Rhetoric I, A Commentary. New York: Fordham University Press.
Kerferd, G.B. (1981). The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Kraus, M. (1994). Enthymem. In G. Ueding (Hrsg.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, Sp. 1197–1222.
Liebersohn, Y.Z. (1999). Alcidamas’ On the Sophists. A Reappraisal. Eranos97, 108–124.
Lord, C. (1981). The Intention of Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Hermes109, 326–339.
Marrou, H.-I. (1948). Histoire de l’éducation dans l’Antiquité. I. Le monde grec. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Mikkola, E. (1954). Isokrates. Seine Anschauungen im Lichte seiner Schriften. Helsinki: Finnische Literatur-Gesellschaft.
Muir, J.V. (2001). Aleidamas: The Works & Fragments. London: Bristol Classical Press.
Nehamas, A. (1999). Eristic, Antilogic, Sophistic, Dialectic: Plato’s Demarcation of Philosophy from Sophistry. In his Virtues of Authenticity. Essays on Plato and Socrates. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 108–122.
Norlin, G. (1980 (= 1928)). Isocrates. With an English Translation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press/London: William Heinemann (Loeb Classical Library).
Ong, W.J. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London/New York: Methuen.
Rackham, H. (1965 (= 1937)). Rhetorica ad Alexandrum. With an English translation. In: Aristotle. Problems II & Rhetorica ad Alexandrian. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press / London: William Heinemann (Loeb Classical Library), 258–456.
Raphael, S. (1974). Rhetoric, Dialectic and Syllogistic Argument: Aristotle’s Position in Rhetoric I–II. Phronesis 79, 153–167.
Rescher, N. (1998). The Role of Rhetoric in Rational Argumentation. Argumentation12, 315–323.
Schupp, F. (1926–1927). Zur Geschichte der Beweistopik in der älteren griechischen Gerichtsrede. Wiener Studien 45, 17–28; 173–185.
Spengel, L. (1847). Anaximenis Ars Rhetorica, quae vulgo dicitur Aristotelis Ad Alexandrum. Leipzig: Verlagsbureau.
Tessitore, A. (1996). Reading Aristotle’s ‘‘Ethics.” Virtue, Rhetoric and Political Philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Wersdörfer, H. SJ (1949). Die PHILOSOPHIA des Isokrates im Spiegel ihrer Terminologie: Untersuchungen zur frühattischen Rhetorik und Stillehre. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
Young, D. (1974). Aeschylus. The Oresteia. Translated into English verse from a scientifically conservative Greek text. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bons, J.A.E. (2002). Reasonable Argument before Aristotle. In: Van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P. (eds) Dialectic and Rhetoric. Argumentation Library, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6057-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9948-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive