Comparing Aeschylus and Aristotle Rhetoric
The readings of Aeschylus and Aristotle are called “The Eumenides” and “Rhetoric” respectively. “The Eumenides” is about Athena trying to save Athens from the Furies using rhetoric. While “Rhetoric” is about how rhetoric is useful, dialectic, which is trying to find the truth is very important too. These readings talk how rhetoric is critical for persuasion and “The Eumenides” shows persuasion in an example while “Rhetoric” just talks about persuasion. Both of the stories talk how being the best persuader can lead you be successful, however Aristotle points out if one’s argument is true and just, then he will win the argument if the contest is equal, because things that are right tend to top the things
…show more content…
However, if a man does not know how to use their words, it is worse than having no muscles. “It is absurd to hold that a man ought to be ashamed of being unable to defend himself with his limbs, but not being able to defend himself with speech and reason, when the use of rational speech is more distinctive of a human being than the use of his limbs” (Aristotle 180). This sentence claims people who don’t know speech and reason ought to be ashamed of themselves, however, men without muscle shouldn’t be ashamed because not everybody can defend themselves with muscle. In “The Eumenides” Apollo wants to stop the Furies by brute force, but Athena decides against his choice. Athena choice works out because of the Furies become good and help Athena.
Although both of the texts tend to say if both of the persuaders are equal in grammar, the truth will almost always win. Aristotle also points out the more popular wins if none of the spectators know what is happening and the best one to trust is the good man. Finally, Aristotle and Aeschylus teach how speech is the critical part in winning argument, even better than brute force, because everyone can use