Abstract

Aristotle's theory of rhetorical discourse is proof-centered, for he says we should persuade our audience by proving the truth, rather than by just influencing their emotions, and that proof is the most effective means of persuasion. Moreover, Aristotle sees that rhetorical discourse is a matter of both proving one's own position and disproving an opponent's, as the opponent's position is an obstacle to the audience accepting our own position. Most studies of Aristotle's rhetorical theory concentrate almost exclusively on how an orator proves a position, while paying little attention to what the Rhetoric says about controversion. The present dissertation aims to repair that oversight by explaining Aristotle's theory of controverting an enthymeme, for the enthymeme is the central concept in his theory of rhetorical proof . Our purpose is to show that Aristotle's analysis gives a systematic account of the methods of rhetorical controversion, an account which explains a wide variety of argument forms and their refutation, forms common to the ordinary discourse used by orators. Aristotle's says that an opponent's enthymeme can be controverted if it is invalid, has a false proposition, or a proposition unaccepted by the audience. Aristotle analyzes the controversion of invalidity by the apparent topics in Rhetoric II.24, controversion of falsehood by the objection and counter-syllogism in II.25, and he briefly mentions controversion of an unaccepted proposition in II.25. In addition, since Aristotle's theory of controversion is but a part of his theory of rhetorical argument, we will explain how controversion fits into the wider theory. Our account is based on a thorough philological analysis of the Greek text, since this is essential for discovering Aristotle's meaning. In explaining Aristotle's theory of controversion in the Rhetoric, and its place in his rhetorical theory, we frequently compare his account with what he says in other works, especially the Sophistical Refutations, Analytics, and Topics. Such comparison is necessary to fully explain the theory of controversion in the Rhetoric, and justified by Aristotle's own references to these works