Rhetoric, the sophists, and the possible

Abstract

This essay argues that the rhetoric of the Sophists exhibits a distinct preference for the world of possibility. As such, it is different from Aristotle's rhetoric, which privileges the world of actuality. After showing how this is so, the essay compares the sophistical and the Aristotelian versions of rhetoric by discussing their respective implications for language and persuasion. The conclusion reached is that the Aristotelian version, although textually and topically more complete, is not superior to but merely different from the sophistical.

Notes

John Poulakos is Assistant Professor of Communication, University of Pittsburgh. Research for this study was supported by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The author wishes to express his gratitude to the NEH for its support and to G. Thomas Goodnight, Michael Hyde, and Panagiotis Poulakos for their helpful comments.