Abstract

Plato and Aristotle developed their theories of rhetoric in conjunction with practical philosophy. As such, rhetoric was not a techne concerned with producing discourse, but rather a critical praxis leading to judgment and action. In this context the rhetorical proofs implicit in Plato and developed by Aristotle were critical in nature, enabling the rhetorician, through ethos, to form judgments about values and discern how such judgments bear on our understanding of a situation, through pathos, to articulate how emotions affect understanding a particular situation and determine whether a particular emotion is appropriate, and through logos, to provide a comprehensive account that serves as a principle of sound judgment and a ground for ethical and political action. ;In basing all valid knowledge on the principles of scientific theory used to account for the laws of physical nature, Hobbes dismisses practical philosophy as absurd and, according to Habermas, practical reason was reduced to technical reason. However, contemporary philosophy offers a critique of scientism, the misapplication of scientific reason to practical problems. As part of that critique, the philosophies of Bhaskar and Taylor provide a basis for reconstructing the rhetorical proofs as legitimate means of argument. Moreover, Habermas identifies universal validity claims of comprehensibility, truth, truthfulness, and appropriateness, which we raise whenever we speak. Because these claims are comparable to logos, ethos, and pathos, respectively, there is a philosophical foundation for understanding rhetoric as the practice of articulating and meeting those claims. ;In The Philosophy of Rhetoric Campbell turns his back on the ethical and political world of judgment and action, looking inward to the "new country" of the mind. Appropriating the principles of science to develop rhetorical theory, Campbell reduces rhetoric from a critical praxis to a manipulative techne. Ethos and pathos become little more than techniques to produce psychological effects for accepting a predetermined truth; logos no more than the restricted accounts sanctioned by scientific method. As such, the end of rhetoric is not judgment or action but rather "to operate on the soul of the hearer."