I want to look more deeply at what is happening in his writing that requires him to shift how he defines words. What does he need the words to do that they won’t do unless he shifts his definition?
For example, in I.2, Aristotle defines rhetoric:
“Let rhetoric, then, be a power of seeing what is capable of being persuasive on each subject” (1355b.28)
I think the footnote in Sachs for the word 'seeing' is important, but for now, I’ll just stick with the basic translation. Here, Aristotle seeks to identify rhetoric as something that happens outside of logic and more rigorous ways of knowing. This is important to him (I still need to understand better WHY this is important,) but situating rhetoric as an ART requires that it not originate in logos necessarily. The power of seeing is different from knowing.
And WHAT one sees are the means of persuasion. Now, because these means are only capable of being perceived by those with this power of seeing, it stands to reason that the means are neither obvious nor tangible. But I suspect that positing the means in this way would position rhetoric as an unteachable skill. So Aristotle must make the means accessible. Watch what he