The articles in this series were delivered as speeches at the end of the Spring 2025 semester for Rosary College’s Speech and Rhetoric course. Student’s were prompted to take a stance on Socrates’ vision of rhetoric as a morally formative force.
St. Augustine, a man who is memorable as both a saint and a sinner, is considered to be a man of God and a man of the Logos. This man of the Logos wrote a work titled Against the Academicians. I myself, a man who will probably be remembered as more of a sinner who spent his life begging for the grace of sainthood, hope to be a man of the Logos, like Augustine. But, when I, someone who aspires towards academia, read this title, I was not in the least uncomfortable. Having examined his work and perhaps discovered his reasoning for it, I have decided to write my own work: Against the Rhetoricians, which is only a little shorter and less spectacular.
In an age of notorious newscasters, petty politicians, and aberrational academics, I see that I have much ground to cover in these few pages, but I am hopefully positive that I may succeed in condemning the rhetorician while at the same time vindicating an abused old art and friend of the homo viator: rhetoric. However, before we embrace an old friend, we should acknowledge that many believe rhetoric to be either a trusty dagger at our side or a knife in our backs. These questions must be answered: is rhetoric a weapon in the hand of man that achieves victory over an opponent or audience like a conquering tyrant? Or is rhetoric a tool in the hand of man that allows him to lead others to the truth like a philosopher-king? In this work that praises rhetoric but sternly warns the rhetorician, I defend that the art of Classical Rhetoric is a means to moral formation when it is used in accord with the truth.
In keeping with rhetoric being something we bring or experience on the journey, it must be noted that rhetoric is assumed by many, and perhaps somewhat justly, as a weapon to be used and to have used against them. I am reminded of what Gorgias says: “Mind you, Socrates, rhetoric has to be used like every other skilled combat” (Gorgias, 456c-d). When rhetoricians use language such as this to describe rhetoric, it is hard not to “mind” the weapon that it is said to be, but was Gorgias right in describing rhetoric as a weapon? In some ways it is, but we have to distinguish what rhetoric should be used to combat against. If rhetoric is used to combat an opponent or an audience, it has been used incorrectly, but what does it mean to combat your audience? If a rhetorician is solely trying to win an argument against his debater or convince his audience, then he has tarnished the weapon given to him. Rhetoric was not meant to be a weapon against men, but against falsehood, and, more importantly, a support and defense of the truth. It is for this reason, rhetoric being more of a support for the truth than an attack against men, that the term “weapon” is too acute for such a thing as rhetoric.
Aside from being viewed as a weapon, rhetoric is commonly known as a tool for manipulation or a means of persuasion that negates personal choice. Many people view rhetoric as a rope used to yank people about, and this view is not completely unwarranted. There are many occasions when, instead of guiding people to the truth, a rhetorician has yanked them astray, but we will not judge rhetoric by the exceptions of its otherwise good use. Rhetoric is an inviting hand that is given so as to guide the rhetorician’s audience or debater. It does not force its audience to believe but has the force to make the truth believable for its audience. The true rhetorician invites others to consider what he says, then requests them to answer a question: “will you follow me?” Just as Christ went to the apostles and asked them to follow the Truth, the rhetorician asks others to follow him who is following the Truth.
But how do rhetoricians persuade people? In what forms is rhetoric used? Rhetoric takes form in speeches and dialog. Granted, the rhetoric used in a speech and in a dialog is employed somewhat differently, but they should both have the same subject: the truth. The difference between a speech and a dialog, which both convince people of the truth, is that in a speech only the speaker is inviting someone to follow. On the topic of speeches and dialogs, for the majority of this paper I will almost only use a small side conversation from Augustine’s work to support my points. It starts with a question by Trygetius: “Is it at all permitted to return to points that have been conceded carelessly?” (9). In this rhetorical dialog, Trygetius asks a question that many rhetoricians would not dare to ask: “if I have errored, may we go back so as to arrive at the truth?”
The question is not as minor as it seems, for it implicitly asks what the entire goal of rhetoric is. Is rhetoric about winning and persuading an audience at whatever cost? Or is rhetoric about the truth? Augustine answers this question: “Here I declare: ‘people who are stirred into debating to give a childish display of their cleverness rather than by any desire to discover the truth typically don’t allow this request’” (9). Earlier, in our discussion on rhetoric being a weapon or not, we came to a similar conclusion, but Augustine had gone farther than us. He has pointed out that these children who play at rhetoric and play on the souls of men seek only vain glory: “We aren’t discussing these matters to attain glory but to find the truth” (80). I said earlier that the term “weapon” was too acute to describe rhetoric; the next answer tells us why it is too acute. Unlike a weapon which is a tool of harm even if used in defense or attack, rhetoric is a tool that can nurture the hearts of men.
In further answer to the question that would perturb many rhetoricians, Augustine explains why he allows this request: “Yet I not only grant it (especially since you still need to be nurtured and instructed), I also want you to take it as a rule that you must return to those points needing discussion that have been conceded incautiously’” (9). The best way to discuss rhetoric as something that nurtures and instructs us is to return to my image of a journey. All men are on a journey, or at least all of them are on or alongside the path. The rhetorician who walks this path of truth and wisdom nurtures and instructs others by either walking along with those who are journeying slowly or by stopping beside the man who is not journeying. He reaches his hand to them and says, “come with me, consider the way I tread; together we will reach the truth.” However, even the rhetorician who is searching for the truth may get lost. It is the rule of admitting a mistake taken on the road that allows the rhetorician to make a turnabout and find the way again.
All beautiful imagery aside, I see that some in my audience are still skeptical of the rhetorician, and rightly so, for the rhetorician is a selfish, manipulating, childish creature who will most of the time sell his city to the wolves for a fine banquet and reputation. However, I have no intention of defending the rhetoricians on all accounts, but I have and further intend to defend Classical Rhetoric in its proper and intended use. In rhetoric’s defense, I will use an argument from a rhetorician whom I consider an enemy of true rhetoric, Gorgias, but who understood something about rhetoric that many overlook: “He passed it on for use in a just manner; the other person is using it the opposite way” (457b).
I ask my audience, would you condemn writing because it was used by a tyrannical dictator as well as a democratic representative? Would you condemn science because scientists used it to create weapons of war but also medicine? The purpose of rhetoric is to guide people towards the truth, so should we condemn such a noble art because a rhetorician has twisted it? If an art is intrinsically good, meaning it is not in essence directed toward a flawed end or uses necessarily evil means, then it should never be judged by its users alone. If we are to condemn an art because of a few bad actors, then there won’t be many arts left to practice. To end this bashing of the rhetorician with some encouragement, I cite the words of Licentious, a man learning rhetoric: “I think that there is no little progress in philosophy,” Licentious remarks, “when a disputant despises victory in comparison with the discovery of the just and the truth” (9).
Truth should be the end of all our conversations, not victory. An audience persuaded by falsehoods is no victory, for how many casualties of error have rhetoricians created? Any rhetorician who sacrifices his audience for the sake of his ego or agenda is not worthy of such a noble title. The rhetorician is a man who should be infinitely warned but also infinitely commended; he guides men to the greatest of things: the Truth, but he can also guide men astray towards its opposite: falsehood. Classical Rhetoric is an art that if used correctly will form man morally, and any art that forms man in such a way must be used to assist our fellow travelers along the way. Only a true rhetorician who is loyal to the Truth may be called a man of the Logos.
