Aristotle and Memes

Of all the concepts describing the human condition, and in particular, human interaction and communication, Aristotle’s Rhetoric towers above the rest. Aristotle essentially classified humans into two groups: those who can reason and those who can not.

His relevant passage is as follows:

“Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.” Aristotle, Rhetoric

This distinction of humans is so simple, and yet profound. The fact this observation has withstood the test of time proves it is innate to the human condition. Learning to utilize this changes the way one views and interacts with their fellow human, down to almost every single interaction. In fact, and I say this without hyperbole, this one concept, above any other, completely changed the way I view the world both in the present as well as in the retrospect. Rhetoric uber alles.

For clarity’s sake, we shall call those who can be instructed via information dialectically-minded and the rest rhetorically-minded. There are multiple names for the rhetorically-limited such as the masses, sheep, NPCs, or just the average person. These all describe the same phenomenon that Aristotle penned over 2000 years ago. The vast majority of the human population is limited to the rhetorical. Dialectic thinkers are a much smaller portion, and these two groups do not understand the other.

Those who utilize dialectic for most of their communication and learning tend to view those who are limited to rhetoric as lower. After all, if one is unable to understand a perfectly demonstrated logic chain or series of patterns utterly proving a concept, and instead is subjected to the argument “but I don’t feel that way”, it is hard to take seriously.

Note, this is not saying those who learn via information are always correct, just look at the state of modern academia as proof, but that they have the ability to utilize additional techniques in order to ascertain truth. This is so for the rhetorically-limited as well. Scaring others into running away from no more than a crick heard in the night does not prove the stalking wolf who broke said stick is actually there, but as it turns out it was there and this intensely fearful reaction saved all others from slaughter.

Where the rub comes into play is when the two sides attempt to communicate. The rhetorically limited appeal to emotions, intuition, word play, and essentially empty phrases in an attempt to persuade the other party. The dialectic users use information, statistics, examples, logic, math, history, or reason in order to persuade. The two are essentially talking past each other, using different “languages” of which the other does not fully understand. The rhetoric-minded is unable to grasp logic or reason itself and is in conflict with what they wish to be true, so the information-dense words do not land. The dialectic-minded views the rhetoric speaker as intrinsically dishonest in that they are attempting to emotionally sway their interlocutor as opposed to meeting the abstractions directly. The inability to understand the capabilities of the other is where the problem lies, not the arguments themselves.

As per Aristotle’s observations, it is impossible to have the rhetoric-limited individual elevated beyond emotional manipulation. But it is possible to get the dialectic-minded individual to stoop to the rhetorical. In fact, people do this all the time without realizing it. Do you talk to your dog about calculus? Or do you tell him how he is the best boy in the whole world and how smart he is when performing a simple trick? Same applies to kids.

For whatever reason, people assume that everyone’s mind magically transforms into this information-only filtering machine when reaching adulthood. But this is nonsense. Take a look around at look at how unbelievably retarded the average person is. To assume they are capable of information processing is akin to expecting a sheep to understand a mathematical formula. This is not only rejecting observable reality, but is also cruel. Withholding a treat to a dog that is expected to perform a Mozart piano concerto is ridiculous and cruel to the dog because this feat will never happen all the while he is trying his best to do what you wish of him.

It is equally ridiculous to expect the rhetorically-limited to understand the reality that, for example, debt increases prices, or that an electrical problem related to fuel injectors will require an electrical solution to fix, or that a military action produces some kind of political reaction. So why try to convince them via explaining the economics of debt, the laws of electricity, or the history of war and conflict? It is much simpler and infinitely more effective to say “Short-term-minded idiots take out loans. Do you want your car to run or not? If you hit, prepare to get hit back.”

All this to say, Aristotle would have loved memes. Why? Because memes are rhetoric distilled into pure, raw, emotionally-laden form. Aristotle was dialectic-minded, but had an immense amount of empathy and observational power to recognize that others are not. He could step back from a situation and say, “That man is reason incapable. I will treat him as the being he is and not what he is not.” Not only is this not cruel, it is compassionate. Aristotle recognized that if one wishes to engage with people, one must utilize the correct level of engagement. He would have absolutely adored the efforts of those who participated in the meme wars as they are meeting the correct communication level of their intended audience.