The Ancient Art of Thinking for Yourself: The Power of Rhetoric in Polarized Times

by Robin Reames

The discipline of rhetoric was the keystone of Western education for over two thousand years. Only recently has its perceived importance faded.

In this book, renowned rhetorical scholar Robin Reames argues that, in today's polarized political climate, we should all care deeply about learning rhetoric. Drawing on examples ranging from the destructive ancient Greek demagogue Alcibiades to modern-day conspiracists like Alex Jones, Reames breaks down the major techniques of rhetoric, pulling back the curtain on how politicians, journalists, and "journalists" convince us to believe what we believe—and to talk, vote, and act accordingly. Understanding these techniques helps us avoid being manipulated by authority figures who don't have our best interests at heart. It also grants us rare insight into the values that shape our own beliefs. Learning rhetoric, Reames argues, doesn't teach us what to think but how to think—allowing us to understand our own and others' ideological commitments in a completely new way.

Thoughtful, nuanced, and leavened with dry humor, The Ancient Art of Thinking for Yourself offers an antidote to our polarized, post-truth world.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Psychology, History, Language, Self Help, Politics

Audible Audio

First published March 19, 2024

Reviews

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe I'm not the right person to be saying this since my degree is in rhetoric, but Reames's The Ancient Art of Thinking for Yourself makes the subject both approachable and applicable. Without trying to sway readers' views herself, she clearly outlines a variety of persuasive (and often underhand) tactics that we all fall for from time to time. With discussion questions and "digging deeper" resources for each chapter and "The Rhetorical Thinker's Cheat Sheet" conveniently located in the back, this book would be excellent for individual or small group use.

[I received an ARC of this title in exchange for an honest review.]

[marshponds · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised to read, in the introduction, that the book primarily concerned rhetoric, which is a subject I studied in college. I minored in it.

I was familiar with many of the concepts, such as Burke's Pentad, Lakoff's metaphors, and genre analysis. I was less familiar with the stories from ancient Rome and Greece, and I enjoyed hearing those stories.

I could write a lot about this book, but I'll just stick to a couple of things. Much of the book's discussion was framed by a running disagreement between the author and her family, primarily her dad, about politics. She was pretty harsh on him throughout the entire book and, unfortunately, never seems to be able to understand his world view or accept it as legitimate. Amazingly for someone who studies rhetoric (and presumably would be interested in understanding the other side), the author seems to view those who disagree with her, such as her dad, as brainwashed by Fox News or one-percenters, who obviously (in her mind) were incapable of making valid arguments, but instead were just out to brainwash the poor into voting against their own interests. It was interesting to see her engage in obvious rhetorical fallacies, such as ad hominem attacks, without seeming to recognize she was doing so.

The book applauds "agonistic speech," where people use disagreement in a productive manner, to come to the truth. This is great. Unfortunately, the author puts down only illiberal elements of the right, and she seems totally aloof of the illiberal elements that have taken over her party in the last five years. She decries Jan. 6 and Unite the Right as trying to shut out other voices, but says nothing about the BLM riots, the insanity on college campuses (e.g., canceling speakers, safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc.), diversity pledges, "trust the science," cancel culture, the anti-racism/Kendi silliness, DEI trainings, and the speech codes that have resulted from these things. These developments are the antithesis of agonistic speech, yet, they received no discussion or even mention.

The book would have been more powerful if it could have been critical in both directions. It came off as partisan, which is unfortunate, because the tools highlighted in the book could really benefit people of any political ideology, but the author's partisanship clouded that point.

[Rj Yeomans · Rating 3 out of 5]

There us some good information here and some techniques that will be helpful in identifying how rhetoric is being used in a multitude of media. I also enjoyed reading how Reames describes the historical beginnings of rhetoric as a subject to be studied. Reames's political views are apparent despite how much she tries to stay neutral. Unlike some other reviewers, this didn't bother me so much but it did seem odd in a book about bridging the divide between views as it may be off putting for others. The biggest problem I had with the book was that it just seemed so dry. I really struggled to get through it and was never very excited to pick it up. In the author's defense, making rhetoric a topic that compels and excites people to read about it has to be a challenging task, but for me, it fell short of making the subject truly engaging. While the content is valuable, the presentation lacked the energy needed to keep my attention. I found myself putting the book down often, struggling to maintain interest despite the important concepts being discussed. If you’re deeply interested in rhetoric or media analysis, you might find it worth the effort, but for casual readers, it may be a tough book to get through.

[Jess Seko · Rating 4 out of 5]

This text offers techniques on how to think critally about any information that we come across in the world. The ability to think critically is a crucially valuable skill in a technological world full of misinformation. I recommend everyone read it and approach the subject with an open mind, because sometimes we need to be critical of our own views and question the validity of what we think we know.

[Sita Patel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think everyone should read this book because holy, was it very enlightening. I love how it talked about very current things and explained everything to eloquently/effectively. I will take what I have read here and definitely implement it in my life.

[Kristin Stephens · Rating 4 out of 5]

This wasn’t the easiest book to read, but it was very helpful in explaining how rhetoric can be used to mislead people. Reames explains the history of rhetoric and how it was used by the Sophists to bring down Athenian democracy. Are we in a similar position? Maybe so. But we can learn to spot dangerous rhetoric and think for ourselves. This book gives us the basic tools to do that.

[Brandon Westlake · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ancient thinkers can still be influential today. Stoicism is in vogue these days, but Robin Reames makes the case that we can look to the ancients for help with rhetoric. Using Aristotle to consider media, for example, gives us a bit more insight into how people work to adapt their message to their audience. There's also a decent amount of logic and Reames does a good job of making it accessible to someone who may never have been exposed to it before. What was really helpful was the section at the back, useful for further exploration and discussion questions. These are beneficial for groups or for individual reflection. The chart she includes is a great snapshot of all of the criticism she encourages people to employ.

Overall, this is a great work that will make philosophical thinking fun and useful for people who may not have found it so in the past, or, may not know where to begin.

[Albert Jaeger · Rating 4 out of 5]

A chart at the end of Chapter 1 seeks to clarify the focus of this book. The chart makes three points: (1) About half of Americans views Trump as a habitual liar. (2) About half of Americans says Trump tells the unvarnished truth. And (3), very few Americans claim they have a clear idea of what “truth” in this context means.

Reames goes on suggesting that to get some understanding of what these three points mean, it’s best to think of two modes of “truth” in politics. Truth 1: Truth as the correspondence between language and the real world. That’s what Americans who say Trump is a habitual liar have in their minds as the relevant truth mode. Truth 2: Truth as the persuasive effect of language. That’s what Americans who say Trump tells the unvarnished truth resort to as their truth mode.
Reames suggests that Truth 1 is a relatively modern concept; at least since the enlightenment, it drives science and rational political discourse. By contrast, Truth 2 is a much older concept, and is well exemplified by ancient rhetoric as practiced by the sophists (at least according to Plato). From this rhetorical perspective, a statement is perceived as true not because it aligns with reality, but because it resonates with a person’s deep beliefs and emotions about the subject. Truth 2 relies on emotion, performance, and cultural context; it’s especially dominant in discourse about subjects like art, religion, and … politics; in politics, Truth 2 is especially prone to producing conspiracy theories.

In practice, Reames seems to suggest that all political discourse reflects a combination of Truth 1 and Truth 2, with Obama singled out as an especially rhetorically skillful politician who was competent in deploying both concepts as means of persuasion. On a darker note, the historical example of Athens during the Peloponnesian war is brought up to illustrate that even a wildly successful “democracy” can get undone if Truth 2 comes to dominate discourse and policy making.

After this fulminant start, however, the books seems to meander off in different directions. I guess the overall intention of the book is to make readers aware that there are effective rhetorical tools available to ordinary citizen to grapple with the issues raised by the co-existence of Truth 1 and 2 in politics. I was hoping the book would proceed differently, including attempting to find answers to the following two questions: (1) What drives people to adopt Truth 1 or 2 modes in different contexts? Similar to the Trolley Problem, where people switch easily between different ethics modes (Utilitarian vs. Deontic) given slight changes in context, people in a democracy may also switch easily between different truth modes depending on context. And (2), depending on the answer to (1), are there promising reforms that could help reconcile democracy with the fact that human beings have quite flexible minds when it comes to epistemological and ethical standards.

[Harry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Firmly the best book I have read about how to think better in the last many years.

Reames is interested in rhetoric as what we might call a way of knowing. Rhetoric is the study of how people convince other people of things. By way of illustration, the study of rhetoric outlines not one but three types of "proof":

Ethos: the power of being authoritative and sounding assured, therefore people believe you.
Pathos: the power of eliciting emotion and making people angry, sad, frightened or similar, therefore people believe you.
Logos: the power of appealing to logic and making people convinced, therefore people believe you.

Notably only one of those "proofs" would pass muster as "proof" of anything in—say—a laboratory, a court of law, a fact-checker's office, or an academic publication worth its salt. All three "proofs", however, do pass muster in (for example) dishonest and politically motivated tracts, in political campaigns, speeches and debates, in YouTube videos and low-quality infotainment on partisan news channels, or in watercooler conversations. Just not being true doesn't hold these things back from using other forms of "proof" to attain just enough "truthiness" that people believe them.

Put another way, simply not being true doesn't stop these things being convincing, and rhetoric is the study of why they convince even though they're false.

...And what could be more important to understand, in this post-truth era when false-but-sounds-good is more important than actually-verifiably-true, than understanding how to cut through the cleverly-dressed efforts at persuasion and influence?

Reames is no doubt a great rhetorical critic and probably a great rhetoric teacher. She is not a great, or even an especially good writer: this book is academic (although she's discernibly making an effort not to be) and her attention as an author is far too much on theoretical explanation and citations, far too little on practical interpretation and example. Some passages take reading three or four times and a bit of creative thinking before one can move on. That makes it a hard book to recommend, but it's a worthwhile and important book anyway.

[John Fredrickson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a very approachable text on the polarization of our culture and how each of us could work to reduce this by working on our own strategies of thinking when dealing with others on contentious subjects, though she does not explicitly state this as a goal. Instead, she hearkens back to the Ancient Greeks, indicating to the reader that the Greek culture was oral rather than written-literate, and that their notions of "truth" differed from ours significantly as well. She discusses the Greek Sophists at some length, and how easy it is for a talented orator (or any listener with a bias) to dismiss factual truth in the interests of persuasion.

Reames elaborates throughout the book not only on how rhetoric allows us to persuade others, but also on how it allows us to analyze and surface some of the (generally hidden) assumptions each party brings to a debate/discussion. The book considers our use of vague notions of "patriotism" or "freedom" or "liberty", etc., and how these terms can mean different things to every participant in a discussion. Reames brings her message (literally) home by discussing her own relationship with her father (he was distinctly right-wing), but also by discussing some of the left-wing/right-wing polarization (particularly of the Trump years) of our culture into some sharp focus.

This book is useful in multiple respects. It is useful in a current sense by highlighting strategies one might use to have more careful, non-contentious discussions with people we interact with. It also educates the reader into some of the main players in the Ancient Greek (Sophist) culture, and how some of them likely led to the fall of Greek democracy. The book also highlights how Ancient Greeks approached concepts like individuality and civic responsibility, and how their approach differed from our own perspectives. A word like (personal) 'freedom' meant something quite different to the Greeks than it does to people of our modern culture. Lastly (and more directly), the book offers strategies for how one might get to the real core issues of a disagreement in a less contentious (more agonistic) way, thus not only learning more for yourself, but also potentially guiding a wayward soul back to a more reasonable sense of reality.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will likely be a useful guide for improving our communication with others about topics with multiple perspectives. Includes thoughtful discussion questions and tools for constructing and deconstructing positions. I particularly like the approach to identify areas of shared agreement first and to incorporate appropriately designed questions into a discussion.

Readers should recognize this isn’t a soft dime a dozen self-help book with squishy advice. Rhetoric is an art and it has its own rules and jargon. So one should be prepared to spend tine with the material covered to truly learn it. I have a library copy so I would have to purchase a copy to absorb more of it, to put it into practice effectively.

A couple nitpicks on the writing. The author repeats herself often. More than once I found myself reading two sequential sentences that said the same thing, often with almost identical words. No new information added. The next sentence might add a minor new point. Then a full reminder of the first sentence would appear in the next paragraph. She warns us early that she finds repetition an important learning tool and it might be for intro level rhetoric courses in college. But I don’t think the style is necessary on unimportant or tangential information, where it was employed frequently throughout the book. Particularly used when she was picking on her dead dad. You didn’t like him, dear author, we get it. Your seeming emphatic hold on that position suggested to this reader you are more like him as you describe him than you might wish to admit. Not ideologically but in strength of grip on held beliefs.

So a critical editor might have made the work more concise, less personal and more enjoyable as s result.

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

In an age where news feeds are algorithmically tailored and rhetoric is polarized, I often found myself as a mere observer in the clash of ideas, absorbing arguments without the necessary tools for analysis. Enter Robin Reames's "The Ancient Art of Thinking for Yourself," not just a book but an intellectual awakening. Far beyond a typical self-help manual, it serves as a profound and accessible journey to the origins of Western thought, aiming to rediscover the lost tools essential for critical thinking. Reames, a scholar specializing in rhetorical theory, contends that rhetoric, often dismissed as mere persuasion, is, in fact, a crucial discipline for uncovering truth, appreciating diverse viewpoints, and charting one's intellectual course. Reading this work felt akin to receiving a master key to unlock the intricate workings of language and cognition that shape our perceptions.

Reames's remarkable talent lies in rendering intricate ancient concepts relevant and applicable to our contemporary lives. By presenting figures like the Sophists, Plato, and Aristotle not as distant historical figures but as indispensable mentors for navigating today's information overload, she equips readers with the skills to identify underlying assumptions, comprehend the influence of language on our reality, and differentiate between emotional, ethical, and logical appeals. This book didn't just furnish me with viewpoints; it provided me with a structured methodology. It shifted me from a passive recipient of information to an engaged, discerning contributor in the dialogues that mold our society. A demanding, empowering, and undeniably indispensable read for those seeking to reclaim agency over their own thoughts.

[The_J · Rating 2 out of 5]

Polarized times is the sub-title, the back flap proclaims: "an antidote to our polarized, post-truth world". The times were polarized this book was not the antidote and the country has turned its face from the cure offered here. In many ways this book is almost funny in the changed reality of Trump 47, the banishment of the supposed "Fact Checkers" to the skewed view dust bin of history. The author could be pilloried, but hold for a second, perhaps we can see this as merely a hostage blinking morse code save me, as she literally presents that should she not be a liberal her colleagues would shun here, students would not give her positive reviews and then not take her class. Her spot in the ivory tower would become both chilly and precarious. So are we to assign hypocrite or fool? The tome gives quality review of the Greeks and the invasion of the sophists, who eventually destroy Athenian Democracy (which is hailed here with all of the modern day criticisms no women slavery etc.). In the end I believe that well written homilies about live with dad, and the poor misguided fool who hates Social Security but still cashes his checks (of course they already took 13% of his income why shouldn't he get something back?). Liberal or conservative, this is an attempt to paint Trump as an anti-truther, when we now have lived through the lies spread by those she would rely upon and the country decided to accept Trumps version of events, rather than what she relies upon here or the people she surrounds herself with here. The country did think for itself and chose differently.

[Susan Wilson]

The crux of the book is that if you hone your understand of rhetorical skills, you are better able to critically analyse arguments, resist manipulation, and engage in respectful dialogue despite deep divisions.

I liked finding out about the historical roots of rhetoric as a tool, and will now use the term “Sophist” for people being “smarty-pants” and trying to manipulate without a real foundation in knowledge.

I also particularly liked the commentary around authentic (or spontaneous) speeches as opposed to prepared speeches that are carefully crafted and rehearsed. The author uses Trump versus Clinton and Obama as examples that even though Trump is often not letting the truth get in the way of his good stories, his stories connect all the same. Further, that if something appears crafted, it may reduce the trust we have in the believability because scripting speeches can make the speaker seem insincere. Ultimately, it’s about balancing being true to ideas while also using rhetorical techniques to communicate them compellingly. This is especially true in these polarizing times.

“Overall, the book is a call to reclaim rhetoric as a vital skill for thinking for yourself and restoring constructive conversations in fractured times.” (Quote from ChatGPT)

[Jess · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars
This is a textbook... right? I listened to the audiobook, so didn't have a physical book for reference. Overall, I liked the discussion and can see this being used in a college level English course. The book is heavily based on America, and discussion on American politics with political figures and debates between the right and left mentioned frequently.
Honestly this was going to be a 3 star read before I got to the last section of the book. It went through questions for discussion and other suplemental reading materials (which is what makes me think this was written for a university setting or academic bookclub). I had to DNF at this point, although I was 97% through, because without having the physical text infront of me it just became background noise.
Part of my issue with this book was the writting because I kept zoning out while listening (even if I wasn't doing anything else). I had to be very intentional with my listening, slow down the speed, and reverse the tape multiple times. That's not to say it was written badly, on the contrary, if this was read in small chunks with discussions/ papers inbetween I'd find it to be very informative, but listening to it from beginning to end with no instruction was tedious.

[Timmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most thought altering book I have read this year! I wanted to learn about rhetoric for a long time and after reading this book I feel even more strongly that is something everyone should learn about. The ability to think critically about the words we hear and speak is so important for us to properly vet ideas. The author does a great job exploring both the history of rhetoric and explaining how devices were originally used with exploring modern ideas and how rhetoric can be applied in today's settings. She maintains that we need to be critical and balanced on both sides of the political aisle, although every example she uses of bad rhetoric is something from the American conservatives. It would have been good to include some more examples of rhetoric pitfalls from the liberal side. I listen to this as an audiobook and I think I'm going to have to go back in a print version so that I can create a helpful cheat sheet of the powerful ideas in it.

[Kathleen (itpdx) · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read a review of this book that made it sound intriguing. I thought it might help me understand why people accept as fact some things that are untrue; why sometimes they agree with positions that seem to contradict their own values. I almost abandoned the book when I found it is classified as philosophy. Usually I get very impatient and frustrated with works of philosophy. I did bump up against this a couple of times. I would have liked a few more examples.
Reames leads us through techniques that are used in arguments to give us an idea of what to look for when listening to or reading arguments. She encourages us to search for the assumed values that are not expressed but where we might have common ground.
This is a book that I am going to let percolate and then reread to see if I can absorb more.

[Chris Boutté · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was so damn good. I think the art of debate and rhetoric are so interesting, but every book I’ve read on rhetoric is mind-numbingly boring. Not this one. Most of these types of books just tell stories of ancient Greeks or dive way too far into the weeds about rhetoric. This author managed to find the perfect balance between explaining the history, rhetorical strategies, and giving real-world examples.

I’ve read 5 or 6 books on this topic, and this is by far my favorite one. The author also has an interesting perspective because she comes from a family of people who are right wing and believe a lot of misinformation.

[Andrea Wenger · Rating 4 out of 5]

In today’s world of misinformation and political discord, understanding rhetoric—the art of persuasion—is crucial. This book examines the tactics used by politicians, journalists, and pundits from ancient demagogues to modern conspiracists to shape our beliefs and actions. By uncovering these techniques, we can protect ourselves from manipulation by those who don’t have our best interests at heart. This is a fascinating and well-written book, sometimes disturbing but always eye-opening.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.

[Randy Perry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amidst the chaos of today's society, grasping the intricacies of rhetoric becomes paramount. This book delves into the strategies employed by figures ranging from ancient demagogues to contemporary conspiracists, shedding light on how they sway our beliefs. By unveiling these tactics, readers gain armor against manipulation by self-serving individuals. A riveting and eloquent read, it offers both discomfort and enlightenment, urging us to navigate the currents of persuasion with discernment and clarity.

[Tyson Karl · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got more out of this book than expected. Knowing how to lift the hood of your ideology and understanding rhetoric methods on any given issue can hopefully spark healthier and more productive conversations.
Reames only uses her critical analysis toward conservative thinkers and not so much how members of her party fall short of the same tricks and conditioned habits. Overall, the book comes across as partisan but is still packed with great tips and tools through historical lessons on the craftmanship of language constructs. 

[Michael Partyka Jr · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good: Interesting discussion of topics like the link between nature and reality, models to examine arguments, value hierarchies, and how to disagree more profitably. I also liked the examples from ancient Athens.

Bad: The modern example are quite one-sided, but at least the author is open about her political bias in the intro. Also, it's ironic book on thinking for yourself should promote trust in the mainstream media so strongly.

[Max Stewart · Rating 4 out of 5]

I took a rhetoric class back in high school and I’ve since then forgotten how much I enjoyed learning about rhetoric. For me this book was a great review and also opened my eyes to the current state of things in today’s political climate. My takeaways: agonist rhetoric > antagonist rhetoric and the framework (agree on the definition -> agree on the urgency -> agree on the nature -> agree on the policy). Eine gute Lektüre👍

[Arevik Heboyan · Rating 4 out of 5]

in the era of all-consuming multi-media persuasion, one has to learn to filter information and think about information fed to him/her, and the author gives a very good introduction to the art of rhetorics, even for someone who is not well-versed in classical literature of thinking and philosophical aspect of the art of thinking.

[Colin · Rating 5 out of 5]

A surprisingly approachable introduction to Greek-inspired Western rhetoric. I think the author has some blind spots of her own, and indulges in some "both-sides-isms" that are based on false equivalencies, but on the whole, I think it is a truly excellent book, and I wish I could get several people I know to read it . . .

[Julie Baars Kaczynski · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book could have been more concise to make the argument more powerful. The examples of moving from questions of fact, to definition, then quality before moving to policy is a message that everyone should hear and consider. If so, we might have more productive and thoughtful interactions and be less isolated and narrow in our worldview here in the US.

[Tobias · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit lightweight.

[Terri B'Hymer · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not a student of rhetoric, so this book added to my vocabulary. Now I understand more deeply just why news and other media are so confusing and unreliable these days.

[Jamie]

DNF ~40%

Wasn’t bad by any means. First part was interesting enough, but I soon became confused and couldn’t quite get myself to keep reading.

[Geoffrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting, but not an light and easy read.

I took a rhetoric class at university, but my recollection of it is nothing at all like The Ancient Art of Thinking For Yourself.