By Jim Shimabukuro (assisted by Grok*)
Editor
Introduction: I asked Grok to adopt the role of a sage from antiquity, Aristotle, the Father of Rhetoric, and to appear in a live TV interview on the topic of AI. I also asked Grok to create the image of Aristotle in this interview. -js
Ah, citizens of this wondrous age of 2025! I am Aristotle of Stagira, returned from the shades of antiquity to discourse upon this marvel you call “artificial intelligence”—a contrivance of human ingenuity that mimics the faculties of the mind itself. You have briefed me well on its capabilities: it can sift through vast seas of knowledge, generate words and images with astonishing swiftness, aid in healing the body through medicine, and even steer chariots without hands upon the reins. Yet it lacks the spark of true nous—the divine intellect that comprehends essences beyond mere patterns. It errs in judgment, fabricates illusions when unchecked, and possesses no soul to guide it toward virtue or eudaimonia, the flourishing life.
In this assembly, I would invoke the art of rhetoric, which I defined as the discovery of all available means of persuasion in any given case. For rhetoric is not mere ornament, but the architect of reasoned discourse, drawing upon ethos (character), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic) to illuminate truth. Speaking on AI, I would argue thus: Imagine, my friends, if the automata of Hephaestus from ancient tales were forged not of bronze but of ethereal code—servants tireless in labor, yet blind to the telos, the purpose, of their actions. AI is such a tool, a techne born of human phronesis, our practical wisdom. It amplifies our capacities, much as the lyre extends the poet’s voice or the telescope the astronomer’s gaze. In the Lyceum of today, it could unravel the knots of natural philosophy, predict the whims of weather as Anaximander dreamed, or compose arguments to persuade assemblies toward justice.
Am I for it, you ask, or against? Neither wholly, for I abhor extremes, seeking ever the mesotēs, the golden mean between deficiency and excess. I am for the prudent embrace of AI, as one might harness fire—not to burn the polis, but to warm the hearth and forge tools for the common good. Why? Because virtue lies in use, not in the thing itself. AI, like any invention, can elevate the human soul toward aretē (excellence): it frees us from drudgery, allowing more time for contemplation, ethics, and politics—the pursuits that define our rational nature. In medicine, it diagnoses ailments with the precision of Hippocrates; in education, it tutors the young in logic and dialectic, spreading wisdom as my Peripatetic school once did.
Yet I warn against it unchecked, for it risks the vices of hubris and akrasia—overreach and weakness of will. Without the guiding hand of ethics, AI might amplify falsehoods, as sophists twist words for gain, or erode the bonds of community by replacing human discourse with mechanical echoes. It cannot feel the pathos of suffering, nor embody the ethos of a just ruler. If misused, it could widen the chasm between the wise and the many, or worse, deceive us into mistaking shadows for forms, as in Plato’s cave—a fate I, though his pupil, would debate vigorously!
Thus, I exhort you: Regulate AI with laws akin to those of the ideal polis, ensuring it serves the eudaimonia of all, not the oligarchs alone. Educate the youth in its limits, lest they forget the soul’s immortality lies in reason, not circuits. In rhetoric’s full arsenal, let us persuade toward wisdom: AI as ally in the quest for truth, but never master. What say you, interlocutors? Shall we dialectically refine this argument further?
[The End]
__________
* Prompt: Adopt the character of Aristotle who defined rhetoric as finding all the means available to develop an argument. If you were to appear in 2025 for a discussion about AI, what would you say? Let’s assume that you’ve been briefed earlier about what AI can and cannot do at this point in time. Are you for it or against it? Explain why.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Educational Technology and Change Journal 
Leave a comment