Rhetoric: Herrick vs Plato

Rhetoric can be seen in our daily lives. When I turn on the news in the morning, I instantly see headlines that are flooded with persuasive ploys to grab the attention of its viewers. When I scroll through social media, I see my friends use rhetoric to try and persuade others of their opinions. It is clear that rhetoric is more evident in our culture today than ever before, however, the way in which rhetoric is used has changed throughout time. The definition of rhetoric by James Herrick gives a surface level analysis of what rhetoric is, however, in my opinion it is necessary to examine the various opinions of rhetoric and how its “effective symbolic expression” is used to convince others. Compelling symbolic expression may be in the form of rhetorical appeals, such as ethos, logos, or pathos. By appealing to the emotion, values, and reasoning of an audience, a rhetorician may gain more credibility and be able to easily persuade others. One’s effectiveness may be measured by how well they are able to convince others. In Herrick’s definition, he uses words with positive connotation to define rhetoric, however, Plato’s opinion of rhetoric is much different. Plato was anti-rhetoric and anti-democracy and believed that rhetoric is trickery and is used to deceive and fool people. I believe Plato’s definition of rhetoric is best explained by the following quotes in Gorgias, “Thus rhetoric, it seems, is a producer of persuasion for belief, not for instruction in the matter of right and wrong.” Contrary to Herrick’s definition, Plato explains that he believes there is a right and wrong and that rhetoric may lead people to foolishly believe in the wrong. It is clear that Plato didn’t see the use of rhetoric in daily life, instead he only saw it as an opportunity to impress and influence others and particularly to influence others in believing weak arguments. By examining both Herrick and Plato’s opinion of rhetoric, we can see how rhetoric has changed over time.