II. Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Ancient Distinction
The distinction between dialectic and rhetoric is as old as philosophy itself. Plato, in his dialogues, repeatedly warned of the danger posed by rhetoric unmoored from truth. The Sophists of fifth-century Athens claimed to teach virtue but in fact taught persuasion, the art of making the weaker argument appear the stronger, of winning debates regardless of where truth lay. Socrates opposed them, not because persuasion is inherently wrong but because persuasion divorced from truth is manipulation, and manipulation degrades both the manipulator and the manipulated.
Aristotle, more systematic than his teacher, distinguished the two arts precisely. Dialectic is the method of reasoned inquiry, proceeding through premises to conclusions, testing propositions against logic and evidence, aiming at truth. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, analyzing audiences and occasions, selecting appeals that will move hearers, aiming at assent through emotional manipulation. Aristotle did not condemn rhetoric, indeed, he literally defined and categorized it, but he understood that rhetoric without dialectical grounding becomes sophistry that is effective, morally empty, and ultimately destructive.........
This assumption was the tradition’s great strength and its fatal weakness. It was a strength because it produced genuine philosophical progress through the refinement of ideas, the resolution of difficulties, and the accumulation of insight across centuries. It was a weakness because it left those responsible for passing on the tradition entirely unprepared for opponents who were not committed to truth, who understood that most men are moved by passion instead of reason, and who were willing to ruthlessly exploit that understanding for the benefit of their false philosophy.
