Sophistry Then and Now: Aristotle vs. Kenneth Burke
This paper traces the history of sophistry from ancient Greece to the modern era, contrasting Aristotle's critique of the sophists with Kenneth Burke's "new rhetoric." In ancient Athens, sophists such as Gorgias and Protagoras used oratory to win arguments and earn immediate approval rather than to discover truth or justice, drawing sharp condemnation from Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle insisted that legitimate persuasion must rely on artistic and non-artistic proofs — logos, pathos, and ethos — not mere linguistic manipulation. Kenneth Burke's modern theory reframes rhetoric around the concept of identification, arguing that language should build community and address social problems rather than simply sway an audience. The paper concludes that contemporary sophistry is fundamentally more constructive and socially oriented than its ancient counterpart.
- Introduction: Sophistry in Ancient and Modern Context: Defines sophistry and previews Aristotle–Burke comparison
- Aristotle's View of Persuasion and Sophistry: Aristotle's critique of sophists and proofs framework
- Modern Sophistry: Kenneth Burke's View of Persuasion and Sophistry: Burke's new rhetoric and concept of identification
- Conclusion: Evolution from manipulation to community-building rhetoric
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Clear historical framing: the paper anchors its argument in a specific cultural moment — ancient Athens — before moving to the modern era, giving the comparison a logical chronological spine.
- Direct textual evidence: the author quotes Aristotle's own words on rhetorical self-defense and cites Perloff's characterization of the sophists to ground claims in primary and secondary sources.
- Focused thesis: the contrast between "winning arguments for argument's sake" and "inducing cooperation to solve social problems" is stated early and reinforced consistently through each section.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative analysis across historical periods. Rather than treating Aristotle and Burke as isolated thinkers, the author maps each onto a shared question — what is rhetoric for? — and uses that question to reveal how the concept of sophistry shifted from a practice of manipulation to a socially constructive tool. This technique allows the paper to build an argument through contrast rather than description alone.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a contextual introduction establishing ancient Athens as the birthplace of sophistry and previewing the Aristotle–Burke comparison. The second section examines Aristotle's critique, including his framework of artistic and non-artistic proofs. The third section introduces Burke's "new rhetoric" and its emphasis on identification over persuasion. A brief conclusion synthesizes the evolution from manipulation to community-building. The structure is tight and symmetrical, with each body section mirroring the other's organization.
Introduction: Sophistry in Ancient and Modern Context
Athenians in ancient Greece loved public speech. Sophists — people with skills in oratory — were awarded trophies and accorded great respect. They were associated with wisdom, and sophistry was taken to mean the ability to use language or rhetoric to persuade people to accept one's point of view. Athenians admired the sophists' skill for their ability to influence court rulings and assemblies, but the same was not true of critics such as Plato and Aristotle. In his famous dialogue Gorgias, for instance, Plato denounced the sophists, arguing that they focused on persuading and moving the masses at the expense of truth.
For Plato and Aristotle, the sophists were not interested in advancing laborious, rational arguments that led to the discovery of truth; rather, they were only after using their linguistic prowess to win immediate approval. In ancient Greece, therefore, sophistry was more about manipulation and less about truth and justice — more about winning arguments for argument's sake. Modern sophistry is, however, less about winning arguments purely for the sake of persuasion; rather, it is more about building communities and inducing cooperation. This paper examines sophistry in ancient Greece as analyzed by Aristotle, and compares it with that of modern theorist Kenneth Burke to explore how the two differ in their approaches to rhetoric and persuasion.
References
Brock, T. C., & Green, M. C. (2005). Domains of persuasion: An introduction. In T. Brock & M. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1–16). Sage Publications.
Hansen, G. (n.d.). Kenneth Burke's rhetorical theory within the construction of the ethnography on speaking. [University]. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/2207/27%281%29+50-59.pdf?sequence=1
Morella, G. L. (n.d.). The sophist legacy of Protagoras has a mean streak to political correctness at all costs — especially the truth. [University]. Retrieved May 8, 2015, from http://www.personal.psu.edu/glm7/m101.htm
Perloff, R. M. (2003). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the 21st century. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Plato. (2008). Gorgias [E-book]. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1672/1672-h/1672-h.htm
Reinard, J. C. (1997). The development of the field of communication: Our roots. Student webpage for Introduction to Communication Research. Retrieved May 7, 2015, from http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jreinard/bookweb/history.htm
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.