Aristotle and Confucius on Rhetoric and Truth

<p>The current study argues that different cultures can coexist better today if we focus not only on what separates them but also on what connects them. To do so, the author discusses how both Aristotle and Confucius see rhetoric as a mode of thinking that is indispensable to the human understanding of the truths of things or <i>dao</i>-the-way, or, how both see the human understanding of the truths of things or <i>dao</i>-the-way as necessarily communal, open-ended, and discursive. Based on this similarity, the author aims to develop a more nuanced understanding of differences to help foster better cross-cultural communication. In making the argument, she critically examines two stereotyped views: that Aristotle’s concept of essence or truth is too static to be relevant to the rhetorical focus on the realm of human affairs and that Confucius’ concept of <i>dao</i>-the-way is too decentered to be compatible with the inferential/discursive thinking. In addition, the author relies primarily on the interpretations of the <i>Analects </i>by two 20th-century Chinese Confucians to supplement the overreliance on renderings of the <i>Analects </i>in recent comparative rhetorical scholarship. The study shows that we need an in-depth understanding of both the other and the self to comprehend the relation between the two.</p> <p>Introduction: Living the Form and Knowing the Way</p><p></p><ul> <br><br><p></p> <li>Similarities and Differences</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Rhetoric and the Other</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Rhetoric and Truth</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Rhetoric and Sophistry</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>A Twofold Argument</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Translations of Works by Aristotle and Confucius</li> <br><br> </ul><p></p><p>Chapter One: Aristotle and Rhetorical Invention: A Legacy of Probable Inquiry</p><p></p><ul> <i></i><p></p> <li>Episteme and <i>Techne</i> </li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Sophistical Reasoning</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Dialectical Reasoning</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Both Sophistical and Dialectical Reasoning</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Classical Rhetoric</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Rhetorical Invention Today</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Conclusions</li> <br><br> </ul><p></p><p>Chapter Two: Interpreting the <i>Analects</i>: The Need to Address Rhetorical Invention</p><p></p><ul> <br><br><p></p> <li>Confucius and Rhetoric</li> <br><br> </ul><p></p><ul> <br><br><ul> <br><br><p></p> <li>Confucius as a Rhetorician</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Confucius on Rhetorical Invention</li> <br><br> </ul> </ul><p></p><ul> <br><br><p></p> <li>Studies of Confucius’ <i>Analects</i> </li> <br><br> </ul><p></p><ul> <br><br><ul> <br><br><p></p> <li>Religious and Philosophical Interpretations</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Literary Interpretations</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Rhetorical Interpretations</li> <br><br> </ul> </ul><p></p><ul> <br><br><ul> <br><br><p></p> <li>Two Approaches</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Difficulties with Focusing Exclusively on Differences</li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Importance of Studying Differences within Cultures</li> <br><br> </ul> </ul><p></p><ul> <br><br><p></p> <li>Conclusions</li> <br><br> </ul><p></p><p>Chapter Three: Rhetorical Probability: Form, <i>Eikos</i>, <i>Tianming</i>,<i> </i>and <i>Rendao</i></p><p></p><ul> <br><br><p></p> <li>Form and <i>Eikos</i> in Aristotle: </li> <br><br> </ul><p></p><ul> <br><br><ul> <br><br><p></p> <li>Truth, Form, and <i>Logos</i> </li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Form, <i>Logos</i>, and<i> Nous</i> </li> <br><br> <br><br><p></p> <li>Form, <i>Logos</i> and<i> Pa</i> </li> </ul> </ul>