This article analyzes the origins and significance of rhetoric as an effective means of control through modal power exercised by free citizens of the classical Athenian polis. It explores two fundamentally different perspectives on rhetoric – those of Plato and Aristotle. Plato viewed rhetoric as sophistic play in opposition to reality, which he characterized extremely negatively, particularly in the dialogue Gorgias. From the standpoint of modal power theory, Plato saw rhetoric as an instrument for establishing a single truth for all citizens, as opposed to the sophists, who commodified knowledge. Post-truth always tends to partially or completely negate the idea that all members of society perceive surrounding reality in the same way. It effectively attempts to replace truth with post-truth, undermining the foundations of the slave-owning Athenian democracy. In the version presented by Plato in the Dialogues, his Socrates insists on the necessity of playing only one game, established by the ruling elite, in which philosopher-kings act as the highest guarantors of truth. Modal power in society belongs to the ruling elite, which, even during the era of Athenian polis democracy, established norms of truth/post-truth and managed citizens’ perceptions and worldviews regarding the surrounding (natural and social) reality.The study of rhetoric in the context of modal power has been addressed in the works of S. Fuller. In contrast, Aristotle, in his treatise Rhetoric, offers a different view of the art of persuasion. Rhetoric is oriented not only toward proofs but also toward plausible assumptions; not only toward the real, which is necessary, but also toward the probable. The philosopher opposed the logic of truth to the logic of probability. This branch of rhetoric is currently being developed in the works of C.Ginzburg. In contemporary times, attitudes toward rhetoric remain ambivalent. It has been demonstrated that rhetoric, as a foundation of modal power, reveals a profound rupture between opinion and reality in the political sphere, which to some extent reflects the negative perception of rhetoric that emerged in the early modern period.However, a positive development lies in the further evolution toward ontological rhetoric, which significantly expands the boundaries of classical rhetoric. This requires employing a broad arsenal of syntactic and stylistic figures. Consequently, the socio-political application of rhetoric today takes on a new –ontological dimension, which in turn directs scholarly interest toward expanding the potential of (neo)rhetoric within the post-truth context. Research into the post-truth phenomenon allows for a more thorough understanding of which capacities of (neo)rhetoric remain untapped and how, through its means, modern modal power can exist in a democratic society. It is established that through the use of (neo)rhetoric and digital technologies, post-truth acquires new content and becomes subject to control by the ruling elite.
Vadym Palahuta (Tue,) studied this question.