Both Plato and Aristotle agreed on several components of life, however their perception on rhetoric differed. Plato rejected rhetoric and believed it could be used to lead people towards negative outcomes, such as Adolf Hitler’s ability to use persuasive speech to inflict harm. It can also on the other hand be used to inspire positive change such as Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, which inspired peace and led to thousands of people at the March on Washington to rally for freedom as well as civil and economic rights of all people. Aristotle viewed rhetoric as a strong persuasive device and proves a strong understanding of the power of using this device to gain trust with the audience. Both philosophers believe that the goal of the ideal state is to be ethical- but which of the philosopher’s strategies for rhetorical training is more significant. Despite their commonalities because the philosophers are by no means polar opposites, their philosophies differ in three distinct ways: their theories on forms, the central problem of ethics, and their theory on politics.
The most fundamental difference between Plato and Aristotle was their theory on forms- the external shape and appearance of an object. To Plato, Forms is capitalized because the Form an object takes on is where it belongs. So the forms “beautiful black horse” would belong to the Form, the Beautiful, the Black, and the Horse. Forms are abstract objects to Plato; they are known only through the mind and not learned by experience by using our senses. Aristotle rejected Plato’s theory on forms (of which is not capitalized in Aristotle’s case), and to him every form is the form of something. A “substantial” thing is something that is attributed to a thing, and without the thing it could be something completely different or not exist at all. So for example, Black Beauty is a horse. Horse is a certain thing and Black Beauty is substantial to it, so without that form Black Beauty would not exist. There are also “accidental” forms, so Black Beauty is black, is accidental, because the color blackness is not permanent and could be changed (someone could paint the horse) and thus its color is not certain.
Another key difference between Plato and Aristotle surrounds the central problem of ethics. The answer, which most ancient ethicists agree on including Plato and Aristotle, was achieving happiness through living a good, virtuous life. Plato explored different virtues such as courage, piety, and temperance and whether virtues could be taught. In the Republic, Plato develops a theory of justice as a condition of the soul and reason to understand the Form of the Good, which can only be acquired through years of training in dialectic and other disciplines such as different educational programs. Ultimately, for Plato, only learned philosophers can be virtuous. To Aristotle, happiness in not merely a condition of the soul, but a human right. And to attain the good life, you must participate in rational activity of the soul, as guided by virtues. Aristotle recognized intellectual virtues, like wisdom and understanding, and more practical virtues, like courage and temperance.
The last difference between Plato and Aristotle was their theory of politics. In the Republic, Plato’s ideal state is broken down by three individuals (Rulers, Soldiers, and Producers). When these individuals function coherently and work in proper harmony, this leads to the creation of the ideal state. Plato’s philosophy is notorious for its assertion that only philosophers should rule. Aristotle’s political philosophy was that humans were “political animals”. That it is natural human inclination to form political communities. That it is actually impossible for humans to thrive and flourish if they do not form communities. Aristotle created classifications for different kinds of political communities based on the number of rulers and how those rulers ruled, whether they have the interests of the few in mind, or the many. So a monarchy is an individual ruler who has the interests of the many in mind. Tyranny is one ruler who rules with his own interests in mind. Ruled by many with everyone’s interests is aristocracy, and ruled by the minority with its own personal interests is oligarchy.
Despite having different theories on forms, their views over ethics and the virtues that is takes to live a good, happy life, and different views on politics, Plato and Aristotle’s fundamental ideas about persuasive speech and what it takes to create a coherent society are similar. Plato believes in a plain style of writing, with supporting facts, to get us to Truth in writing. He relies on logic to persuade others to the Truth. Aristotle believed that rhetoric needed to be used to educate others, but Plato viewed rhetoric as evil because of its ability to persuade others to inflict harm. Adolf Hitler was persuasive and had the rhetorical skills to influence people to do things they would not be capable of doing without a persuasive ruler pushing them to do so. Aristotle views rhetoric as being a more ethical form of persuasive speech because the speaker’s character is taken into account. If we trust the speaker we are more likely to believe what he is telling us. But clearly this form of persuasive speech can be used for evil-the most significant reason why Plato rejects it. Even despite Plato’s rejection, the differences are different, but still similar enough to make the differences not significant enough to classify these philosophers in completely separate categories of rhetoricians. Both rhetoricians believe in forms, happiness being the key to living a virtuous life, and the importance of political communities.