Breaking Plato’s Spell Reimagining Rhetoric and Dialectic as Counterparts of Hermeneutics

Rhetoric has long suffered from the bad reputation Plato assigned to it, being regarded as inferior to dialectic and associated with mere persuasion rather than the pursuit of truth. This paper challenges that narrative by tracing the lingering influence of Plato’s criticisms in contemporary theories of argumentation. Drawing on Aristotle’s conception of rhetoric as the counterpart of dialectic, it reexamines the relationship between the two disciplines and argues for a rehabilitation of rhetoric. Furthermore, inspired by Schleiermacher’s general hermeneutics, it proposes an even more radical reconceptualization: rhetoric should be seen not merely as the complement of dialectic, but the two disciplines together should be viewed as counterparts of hermeneutics. This reconceptualization highlights the independent contribution of rhetoric to the study of human communication, especially in the context of disagreement. In doing so, the paper seeks to free rhetoric from Plato’s spell and affirm its vital place in contemporary thought about argumentation and persuasive communication.