Aristotle, The Rhetoric, Book I

It's interesting to compare and contrast Aristotle's views to the views we saw in Plato's works. Whether the views we see from Aristotle were thoughts Plato encouraged in later years, cultivated by an outside source, or developed purely by Aristotle himself, there are definitely distinct differences between what we read in Plato and what we've read in this first portion of Aristotle. 

The main difference is Aristotle's opinion of rhetoric. In Phaedrus, we did see some hints of "rhetoric might be okay, sometimes, maybe," but otherwise Plato was not too keen on it. Meanwhile, Aristotle has written apparently quite a bit supporting rhetoric, and supporting aspects of rhetoric that Plato would loathe. Plato would want discourse to be strictly academic and calm, but Aristotle seems to have a better understanding of human emotion, and how a strategic use of the various modes of persuasion can move people more effectively than a strictly academic argument. 

However, like Plato, Aristotle seems to hold rhetoric to a very high standard. He sees it as a way of defending truth from those that might obscure it, saying that what is true and just naturally stands out from what is not, so if something that is untrue wins over something that is true, it must be the fault of the speaker (22). Aristotle states that not being able to defend yourself with speech and reason as shameful, if not more so, than being able to defend yourself with your limbs (23). I think Plato and Aristotle would think alike on this, the main difference being one preferring the dialectic form of discourse while Aristotle is a fan or rhetoric. 

Also like Plato, Aristotle also seems to be not a fan of the sophists; the sophists so far have been only briefly mentioned, but it did not seem that Aristotle approved of them. You would think that with his support of rhetoric that he would welcome them, but it appears that, if I understand correctly, that sophists always are trying to achieve a moral purpose but might not take the same intellectual and knowledgeable route as a rhetorician (24). My guess is that because of this, Aristotle sees the sophist as more prone to deceit. 

I say this partially because this reading is vastly different from what I've seen so far when looking at the sophists. It seems that the main difference between Aristotle and the Sophists is the consideration of audience. It seems to me that the Sophists are more concerned on simply getting people to react in appropriate ways using the various appeals, but Aristotle wants to get understanding audience down to an exact science. Reading this text much of the time felt a lot like a text on psychology, for Aristotle was very concerned on what the masses would think and what would drive them to think or act. It's like Aristotle has taken the work the early sophists did, but has run with it and gone way deeper. 

Like Plato, Aristotle also seems to assign a deep moral meaning to rhetoric, with all of his talk on human nature, as well as going deep into what is good and just, and degrees between good, bad, and excessive. I'm definitely curious to see where Aristotle will take us, since it seems much of the next book also focuses on human character, rather than be a straight guidebook of "yo, this is how to get people to listen to you." I definitely wasn't expecting this level of psychological introspection from Aristotle, who I always heard was a big math/logic/science-y guy. 

Questions:

1. Do you think a deep understanding of social psychology is, as Aristotle seems to imply, necessary for rhetoric? Should it be necessary for rhetoric? Is understanding happiness and motive for example a necessity, or is a basic understanding of "what makes people tick" enough?

2. What do you think of Aristotle's idea of "things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites" (22)? Do you think this is largely true, or hopelessly naive? Are there specific subjects where this is more/less true?