According to the first philosophers, did they think of rhetoric as good or negative?
I know that Aristotle thought of it more good because it wasn't just used for politics, but for much more. Plato looked on it more negatively because it could easily manipulate people and a form of deceit. I am not sure what the overall answer would be. Because some thought of it as negative others positive.
see the wiki article, it is an excellent summary.
Search WIKI Greek retoric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric#History
So the first philosophers thought rhetoric was good right ?
"Good"? I don't know what good means.
Classical Greeks felt rhetoric, or the power to speak before an audience was essential and useful.
<<In ancient Greece, the earliest mention of oratorical skill occurs in Homer's Iliad, where heroes like Achilles, Hektor, and Odysseus were honored for their ability to advise and exhort their peers and followers (the Laos or army) in wise and appropriate action. With the rise of the democratic polis, speaking skill was adapted to the needs of the public and political life of cities in ancient Greece, much of which revolved around the use of oratory as the medium through which political and judicial decisions were made, and through which philosophical ideas were developed and disseminated. For modern students today, it can be difficult to remember that the wide use and availability of written texts is a phenomenon that was just coming into vogue in Classical Greece. In Classical times, many of the great thinkers and political leaders performed their works before an audience, usually in the context of a competition or contest for fame, political influence, and cultural capital; in fact, many of them are known only through the texts that their students, followers, or detractors wrote down. As has already been noted, rhetor was the Greek term for orator: A rhetor was a citizen who regularly addressed juries and political assemblies and who was thus understood to have gained some knowledge about public speaking in the process, though in general facility with language was often referred to as logôn techne, "skill with arguments" or "verbal artistry."[42]>>
Well then they looked at it as a positive aspect. Right?
YEs, in ancient and classical Greeks toolkits, rhetoric was how they did it. Your thoughts on Plato of the later period, are valid.
Oh ok i understand. Thank you very much :))
You're correct in noting that different philosophers had differing views on rhetoric. While there isn't a consensus on whether they viewed it as completely good or completely negative, some generalizations can be made about their perspectives.
Plato, as you mentioned, held a more negative view of rhetoric. In his dialogue "Gorgias," he criticized rhetoric for its potential to manipulate and deceive people. According to Plato, rhetoric was primarily concerned with the art of persuasion rather than the pursuit of truth and knowledge.
Aristotle, on the other hand, had a more nuanced view of rhetoric. In his work "Rhetoric," he acknowledged that rhetoric could be used negatively, but he also highlighted its potential as a valuable tool for communication and public discourse. Aristotle believed that rhetoric, when used ethically and guided by reason, could be a means to convince and educate others.
Therefore, it can be argued that the first philosophers had varying opinions on rhetoric. While Plato generally viewed it as negative, Aristotle saw it as having the potential for both positive and negative applications, depending on how it was used.