Aristotle - 5 Ways To Communicate Effectively

Aristotle is widely hailed as a pioneering intellect who flourished from 384 to 322 BCE.

He was first a student of Plato, then, when Plato retired, he left the academia which Plato founded and he became the tutor of Alexander the Great and the two other future kings, Ptolemy and Cassander.

His remarkable contributions span a multitude of disciplines, positioning him as the revered progenitor of logic, biology, political science, zoology, embryology, natural law, scientific method, rhetoric, psychology, realism and even meteorology.

Among his multifaceted pursuits, Aristotle's profound insights into the realm of communication hold enduring significance.

In his notable works such as Rhetoric and Physics, Aristotle extensively explored the art of persuasion and the principles underlying successful communication.

He distilled his theories into three crucial components, logos, ethos and pathos.

These elements encompass logic, credibility and emotion, respectively.

According to Aristotle, effective communication requires a harmonious integration of these three modes of persuasion.

Furthermore, Aristotle presented a model of communication that offers valuable insights into the communication process itself,

which is why in this video we bring you 5 practical ways to communicate effectively, drawing inspiration from the timeless philosophy of Aristotle.

1. Use logical arguments.

Aristotle says, "Those who know, do. Those that understand, teach."

One of the first things to consider when you want to communicate in a convincing way is to make sure you are being logical.

Anyone can make a speech and tell people their opinion, but not everyone can be convincing.

Not everybody can teach, only those that know how to be logical can.

This relates to Aristotle's very first condition for good communication, called logos.

This is often translated to reason or argument.

It involves questions like, does the speaker use facts and reliable information?

Do their arguments make sense?

Are there any obvious counter-arguments?

Aristotle believed that effective use of logos involved structuring arguments in a clear and logical manner,

avoiding fallacies or errors in reasoning, and presenting evidence that was relevant and convincing to the audience.

It involves appealing to the audience's sense of reason rather than their emotions to persuade them of the truth or validity of a particular position.

For example, if you were trying to convince someone to support a particular political candidate,

you could use logos by presenting facts and statistics that demonstrate the candidate's effectiveness rather than relying solely on emotional appeals or personal anecdotes.

Similarly, if you were making a business proposal, you could use logos by presenting a well-researched and reasoned argument for your proposal,

rather than simply making emotional appeals or relying on intuition.

Using logos in conversation is important because it allows you to present a well-reasoned and complete logical argument that is more likely to persuade others.

By using logical appeals, you can help your audience understand your point of view and see the rational basis for your arguments.

When you use logos in conversation, you can help your audience to see the facts and evidence that supports your position.

This can be especially important in situations where emotions are running high or where there is disagreement or conflict.

By presenting a clear argument in this way, you can help to diffuse tensions and move the conversation towards a more productive and collaborative outcome.

There is no room for interpretation or emotional mistakes in logic.

Finally, another effect of using logos in conversation is that it can help you to build credibility and establish yourself as an authority on the subject.

By demonstrating your knowledge of the topic and your ability to reason logically, you can build trust and respect with your audience.

This can be especially important in professional settings where your ability to communicate effectively can have a significant impact on how successful you are in your career.

In short, using logos in conversation is an effective way to communicate your ideas and persuade others.

By presenting a clear and logical argument that is based on evidence and reasoning, you can build credibility, diffuse tensions and move towards more productive outcomes.

2. Establish credibility

In the words of Aristotle, don't try to be different, just be good.

To be good is different enough.

Building upon the notion of citing sources or proof, the next important step is to appear credible to your audience.

Being logical and credible almost go hand in hand, almost no person is considered to be logical if they are not credible.

No matter how logical you are, no audience will take you seriously if they consider you to be unreliable or are in doubt about your competence.

This aspect of communication Aristotle called ethos, which means ethical appeal.

This regards the speaker part of communication.

Who is talking and do we trust them?

You have to present your own character in a way that makes people trust you or, better said, in a way that establishes credibility.

Ethos differs from logos in the way that your entire character and who you are matter, not just the argument you intend to make.

What people think of you in general, whether you are considered to be trustworthy as a person, it all matters in terms of credibility.

Some think that the best way to captivate an audience is to surprise them, be different,

out there, shocking, but these are often not the kinds of people that can be trusted.

The best way to appear credible is through communicating well and consistently doing so.

Credibility is measured by your audience: do they belive you and why? Why not?

So, in order to appear credible, you have to gain the trust of those you want to reach. How?

There are multiple aspects to focus on.

Match your audience, stay professional and be logical.

Matching your audience, which is one of the best ways to establish ethos between you and an audience, means to make sure you are tuned into them.

If you use language that is far too complex, too simple, too formal or too informal for your audience,

they might get the sense that you aren't prepared and perhaps even out of your depth.

A connection to the audience is key to making them think you are trustworthy in what you tell them.

On the other hand, it is important to stay professional no matter what.

If you allow yourself to get angry or flustered, your arguments will appear uncertain and chaotic.

You have to stay focused on your goal and not get carried away by minor concerns or objections.

A public speaker that gets emotional after an insult from a member of the public, for example, is generally not seen as very reliable.

Instead, people will assume this person is prone to losing their cool and losing sight of what they are trying to achieve.

Someone who can't stay calm and collected in all situations regarding their argument is someone who is not to be trusted to communicate that argument well.

And finally, but arguably most importantly, be logical.

If there are no flaws in your logic, there is no reason to distrust you.

This is, of course, hard.

There might always be a part of the context you have forgotten or a flaw in your reasoning that you have overlooked.

But as soon as that comes to light, it is the way that you handle it that establishes your credibility.

Acknowledge your mistakes, be open about them and tell your audience how you plan to improve.

If you shove past mistakes under the proverbial rug, they might come up in the future and immediately strip you of any and all credibility you have built over time.

Mistakes, even in logic, are okay - as long as you acknowledge them.

Audiences trust an honest speaker most of all.

3. Use emotional appeals.

Aristotle considered that "Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all."

Connecting with an audience can be quite challenging, especially if it's a group that you feel far removed from in real life.

So an absolute necessity when communicating is to know them well.

You need to know what kind of people you will be talking to and what that says about their interests, needs, values and so on.

When you manage to link whatever you are talking about to one of those, you will make your topic relevant for them and anyone will listen to what sounds relevant.

Aristotle called this aspect of communication, pathos.

Pathos stands for the emotional appeals you use to grab the attention of your audience.

Making people feel certain emotions helps them to keep listening, but it's the content and meaning in the words you use that makes people start to care for what you have to say.

It's no wonder that pathos is often a stand-in for emotion.

Or even more on the nose, in traditional Greek it translates to suffering and experience.

This mostly concerns the audience part of communication.

How will you draw them in?

Emotional appeal means that you make your audience feel.

When you actually get them to experience emotions, you will make them care.

And an audience that cares is an audience that truly listens.

One of the biggest mistakes up and coming public speakers make is to think that they can write one speech and present it to different audiences.

This does not work.

Your speech should have different versions depending on what kind of audience you will present it to.

When you talk about student experiences with elderly people, they will be way less receptive than students or parents of students.

So when you do have to speak to elderly people about student experiences, make sure to connect it to them specifically.

Compare it to their experiences as elderly people, for example, being dependent on public transportation, or compare it to how their student times must have been.

Make sure to make them feel emotion.

Emotions cannot be brought to the surface on command.

Many speakers seem to think that simply stating that something is worthy of anger, outrage, sadness, grief, and so on is enough to make their audience agree.

But someone actually needs to experience the emotion in order to agree.

The trick is, thus, to give the audience something that truly makes them feel.

No emotion has to be named.

Instead, a story should be told, a comparison should be made, or a real-life case should be brought to the listener's attention.

Saying there has been a hurricane in a certain country does not evoke emotion, but telling people about a specific child that lost their parents due to that hurricane does.

People need to be presented with a window through which they can step into the story you are telling them.

They need to be pulled in through vivid language and accessible imagination.

The kind of emotion to convey to your audience, however, is tricky.

You can make them all feel down with a sad story, make them feel confident with a motivating speech filled with personal anecdotes, make them feel angry during a talk about an injustice, etc.

The emotions you make people feel shape how they interpret what you have to say and what they want to do with that information after you are done speaking.

When you want people to step up and take action as a result of your speech,

it's probably not the best idea to make them feel depressed, but when you want to invoke a serious conversation,

it's unhelpful to use humor and make people feel happy and light-hearted.

The key to pathos is to make sure you say what you have to say in a way that makes people feel the emotions you want them to feel.

As soon as you get your audience emotional, they will start to care about what you have to say.

4. Use clear and concise language

According to Aristotle, " To write well, express yourself like the common people, but think like a wise man."

Aristotle stressed the importance of examining the style in which you talk.

Some academics seem to think that, in order to show their expertise, they must use incredibly dense and difficult language.

Big words, long sentences and elaborate explanations.

Whenever one writes something in that way, they feel competent and smart, and while using difficult language is, of course, a sign of intelligence,

it's actually also one of the worst things to do when trying to convey a message to an audience.

It alienates them.

You don't want to make your audience feel dumb and less than you are.

It will, at best, make them feel uneasy and at worst, make them resent you.

You might want to make sure you succeed on the logical front, for example, but long and difficult arguments with many premises might lose your audience anyway.

It doesn't matter if you are being logical if your audience isn't listening.

Or you might want to make sure your audience feels, but even the most well-meaning speakers can confuse or mislead their audiences by using dramatic term after dramatic term,

evoking emotion after emotion until their speech becomes impossible to follow clearly.

A good communicator knows how to translate the most intricate theories or plans that they know into words that any other could understand.

Prioritizing clarity over extravagance is actually one of the most difficult skills to possess.

It is essential to ensure that your audience understands your message to avoid confusion and disinterest.

Therefore, while your speech should be engaging, it should also be clear and concise.

It is true that allowing your creativity to run free carries a risk, just as boiling down your speech into the simplest terms does.

The key is to find the right balance between using expressions that are more complex and stating things plainly.

By striking this balance, you can hold your audience's attention while ensuring that they understand your message.

Aristotle has multiple terms for multiple ways of speaking.

Standard expressions or simple terms he calls curia onomata, more creative expressions are called glota,

newly coined expressions instead of more well-known ones are called pepoimena and composite expressions ta dipla.

The very first is a way to speak clearly while the latter three are all ways to engage with an audience.

The idea is to balance the first out with the latter three when appropriate.

For example, talking about a death might be done in a creative way in order to evoke emotion and sympathy.

You can say, no longer with us, in other words, use glota or met their maker, using pepoimena or make something else up entirely, using ta dipla.

What euphemism you would choose to describe a death depends on the emotion you are trying to evoke, but they are all more impactful than simply saying, he died.

However, when talking about something more complicated or unknown, it is important to prioritize clarity over anything else.

When talking about physics, for example, it becomes important not to use difficult terms that your audience might be unfamiliar with,

but rather explain all terms in the simplest way possible.

In order to have an audience not lose track of your speech, a majority of clear speech is needed, interchanged with the occasional idiom, euphemism or other creative expression.

Aristotle stresses that while it is important to keep your audience interested,

you should make sure that you are also clear and concise enough for them to follow your speech without confusion, frustration or difficulty.

No matter how hard you try for your audience to listen, if they don't understand you, they simply won't care about what you have to say.

5. Practice communicating.

Aristotle suggests that, "for the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them."

A good public speaker comes on stage knowing what they are about to say and how they want to say it.

There is only one way to get to that point. Practise.

Practicing doesn't just mean, in this case, standing in front of a mirror and reciting or memorizing lines.

It means putting yourself out there and reflecting on every time you have communicated to an audience.

What went right?

What went wrong?

What strengths do you have and how could you improve them next time?

You can't wait in the shadows and have the first time you step into the light be perfect.

Instead, you must step into the light again and again and again until you become great.

Not all of your arguments will always be valid and sound, not all your tries will invoke the right emotions and not everybody will perceive you as credible.

Instead, you build yourself up and train yourself to do these things by trying.

The clearest way to go about this is by examining the communication process.

Aristotle organized this process in the following way.

There is a speaker who produces a speech which reaches a certain audience and eventually has an effect.

In short, speaker, speech, audience, effect.

You are the speaker, you produce the speech.

When you speak, you must keep the kind of audience you have in mind and the effect you want to achieve with your speech.

When reflecting on past communication attempts, you can reflect on any of these four aspects of the process.

For example, take someone who has tried to convince their school to vote for them as school president.

In order to do so, they have promised healthy cafeteria food and cleaner toilets.

Then they get too few votes and don't become school president.

They now have to consider every aspect of the communication process in order to change their strategy for next time.

So they did not achieve the desired effect, for everybody to vote for them.

How should they change this?

First, let's examine the speaker.

Were they seen as credible or does everybody still remember that time they blamed someone else for throwing a football through the science lab window?

If so, they have to make amends in order to seem more convincing.

Then the speech.

Was it logical, engaging, understandable?

And third, the audience.

Perhaps the speaker didn't know that much about their peers and didn't realize they don't actually care about healthy cafeteria food and instead would prefer longer breaks.

If you want to convince an audience to react in a certain way, in this example by voting,

you have to implement their interests as well or at least find a way to make them care about what you are trying to say.

Clearly the student in question hadn't examined their audience enough to know what would make them care.

They should have focused on the break time as well.

Lastly, the effect.

If all else fails, it can also be helpful to examine the effect you wanted to achieve and see if you could settle for another effect.

Perhaps this student could set the bar lower and not go for student president, but should maybe try to get signatures for a petition to include more healthy food in the cafeteria.

No matter how prepared you think you are, when communicating you will always realize new things in hindsight.

This is why it's important to keep practicing and reflecting.

Do your best to actually find more opportunities to try and communicate with others and examine how it goes.

Those who practice the most, grow the fastest.