Arthur Walzer, in his "Aristotle's Rhetoric, Dialogism, and Contemporary Research in Composition," argues that Aristotle was not engaged in a dialogic argument, as many rhetoricians have argued since; the only reason we make such attempts at constructing history is to make it fit with current ideals and "truths." Walzer does point out, however, that just because Aristotle thought his audience was an ignorant bunch of louts is no reason we still can't make use of him to engage in dialectic discourse towards the discovery of a mutually-obtained conclusion constructed between both speaker and audience.

Hear hear. How many times do we have to keep raking the classics over with the rake of modern-day political correctness and humanism? Maybe some day they'll stop publishing editions of Native Son or Invisible Man because "we don't segregate any more." Besides, Aristotle's tactics would come in handy in some audiences to this day--just ask any high school freshman teacher. I know such a statement may damn me in the eyes of many educators--are we here to tell students the truth, or to equip them with the tools to discover it on their own? To this age-old question, I can only answer: "Kairos shall lead the way." It was good enough for the Greeks, and it was good enough even for medieval rhetoricians equating "Truth" with whatever they "found" in the Bible (and don't send me letters). It's good enough for me.