§14. The Basic Determination of Rhetoric [133–134]

The distinction between ἐπαγωγή and συλλογισμός was already set up and clarified by Aristotle in the Topics, where preference is given to ἐπαγωγή over συλλογισμός. Ἐπαγωγή, the “leading-up-to,” is a “path toward . . . ,” ἔφοδος, ἀπὸ τῶν καθ’ ἕκαστον,89 “through what is at each moment,” what is there immediately, “to what is ‘on the whole.’” With an example, I want to exemplify something, to make it clear—not the particular case of the example itself, but rather for the sake of what is ‘on the whole,’ καθόλου. Καθόλου is not general validity, but simply what is ‘such on the whole.’ I say, for example: “If the helmsman is the one who understands his matter best, and the wagon driver is he who does his matter well, then he who in each case understands his matter is the best and the genuine one.”90 The advantage of ἐπαγωγή: (1) πιθανώτερον, a mode of exhibiting that “speaks more for itself”; (2) σαφέστερον, it makes no special demands in the mode that the contexts extend; I demonstrate through the example itself; it speaks more for ἐπαγωγή since it is “more perspicuous” with respect to grasping; (3) κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν γνωριμώτερον, “more familiar with respect to direct perceiving, with respect to customary apprehending”; it is always something that I can directly bring before me; (4) τοῖς πολλοῖς κοινόν, something that is “common to most, to the average among human beings,” that is more accessible.91 Συλλογισμός too has its advantages, insofar as it (1) is βιαστικώτερον, it “has more penetrating power,” and in the end convinces more than mere references to a definite case; that is something varying according to the aim of the discourse; (2) πρός τοὺς ἀντιλογικοὺς ἐναργέστερον. In particular, συλλογισμός is more suitable when it is a matter of speaking and questioning as to things, “speaking to them,” where there is no help to be gained by an example.92 Both ἐπαγωγή and συλλογισμός have their positive possibilities. In the Problemata, Chapter 18.3, Aristotle treats more extensively the reason why the συλλογισμός has this particular penetrating power.

According to the being-character of the way of being of everydayness, speaking and exhibiting are also of an entirely peculiar type. Thus, that from which a συλλογισμός proceeds, and which Aristotle designates in the Analytics as πρότασις, “premise,” always has the character of an ἔνδοξον. It contains something about which one has an opinion. Such an ἔνδοξον must serve as statement for every συλλογισμός that has the character of ἐνθύμημα.

Rhetoric is thus itself no purely formal discourse, but instead it appears that it is related to the being of the being-with-one-another of human beings. One can only understand the explicit emphasis on the connection between politics and rhetoric when the historical background is presented. Rhetoric is not a τέχνη posited by itself, but stands within that of πολιτική. The distinctive

89. Top. Α 12, 105 a 12 sq.: ἐπαγωγὴ δὲ ἡ διὰ τῶν καθ’ ἕκαστα ἐπὶ τὸ καθόλου ἔφοδος.

90. Top. Α 12, 105 a 14 sqq.: οἷον εἰ ἔστι κυβερνήτης ὁ ἐπιστάμενος κράτιστος καὶ ἡνίοχος, καὶ ὅλως ἐστὶν ὁ ἐπιστάμενος περὶ ἕκαστον ἄριστος.

91. Top. Α 12, 105 a 16 sqq.

92. Top. Α 12, 105 a 18 sq.

Page generated by BasConAriPhiSteller.EXE