I.A. Richards & Plato/Aristotle

What are the similarities and differences between Richards and Plato & Aristotle?

I found comparing Richards and Plato and Aristotle difficult, as I feel they would disagree on many elements of rhetoric, starting with the definition and approach to rhetoric. The one similarity that I would feel comfortable noting would be the use of metaphor and rhetoric, and how all three suggest (although Plato does not do so explicitly) that the use of metaphor brings clarity and persuasion to one’s speech that “evidence” does not.

On the other hand, Richards differs greatly on his standpoint on rhetoric and what it represents. Like Bruce noted in his post, the context of the rhetoric and discourse is one of Richard’s salient points in The Meaning of Meaning. Essentially, while Plato and Aristotle concentrate on the orator and the making of the persuasive speech into a rhetorical argument with certain elements, Richards focuses on how the audience interprets the rhetorical discourse, and notes that context, even from moment to moment, can influence meaning. Meaning then, is, although Richards seems to disagree with Saussure, is arbitrary and is influenced greatly by the audience’s perceptions. A quote that attests to this fact can be found on page 1279 in the footnote, where Richards writes “...and it is important to remember that interpretation, or what happens to (or in the mind of) an Interpreter is quite distinct both from the sign and from that for which the sign stands or to which it refers.”

Inclusion of what is rhetorical is also different from Plato and Aristotle according to Richards. He includes, in The Philosophy of Rhetoric, that persuasion “is only one amongst the aims of discourse,” (pg.1281) and that rhetoric should encompass the idea that we are “things peculiarly responsive to other things,” at the simplest (pg. 1283).

What Richards does do well is use Aristotle’s and Plato’s ideas of studying rhetoric in order to make it somehow “scientific,” in a way, and that while hard to define meaning and language, it is not impossible with certain systems in place.  

     

Here I think would be a good time to try and answer Bruce’s question: Is Richards closer on a theoretical continuum to the ancients and his contemporaries or does his thinking more or less reflect (and perhaps possibly inspired) the postmodern thinkers that came after him?

Honestly, I don’t know a definitive answer to this question, and can by no means claim that my answer is “right,” or really, if anyone’s answer would be “right,” since I feel this subject in general is indefinable and always subject to different interpretations and ideas. Nevertheless, I feel like Richards is closer to the postmodern thinkers that came after him because of a.) the use of context and audience as an interpreter versus the orator being the “filler of vases (or banking model)” and b.) the fact that he uses language and meaning as a whole rather than the persuasive act of speaking (I do believe that Richards includes writing in his discussion, unless I am mistaken).

I also feel like Richards uses more of a rationale rather than an imposition, which I feel Aristotle and Plato did often in their work. He still does impose certain ideas, such as the new critic way of getting rid of bibliographical information (pg. 1271) prior to reading, but I feel he explains his way better than Plato and Aristotle, who both do use their authority to their advantage.