Having read Aristotle's Physics in High School, marveled at its intricacy, and then referred to its brilliance in subsequent college classes to make myself sound intelligent, I am shocked to hear Kennedy point out his Rhetoric's flaws. To a young mind, Aristotle seems to have absolute mastery over every subject. I'm surprised to see that Kennedy's critique is so unceremonious, too, pointing out the flaws one by one, in order from most serious to least. I guess I'm still of the mind that if a thinker has been literally carved into marble he should be handled with kid gloves.
Yet I like Kennedy's assertion about not treating the work as a finished product. As a text related to Aristotle's pedagogy, Kennedy's method of treating the Rhetoric as an evolving tool for teaching makes a great deal of sense. It reminds me that our placement in the field of rhetoric allows us to view things without the overbearing dogma that holds back other types of academic study. The "Let's find the inconsistencies" game sounds lame at this point in my academic career.