Aristotle The Art of Rhetoric. 6 how to put the judge into a given frame of mind. About the orator's proper modes of persuasion they have nothing to tell us;. thymemes, which are the substance of rhetorical persuasion, but deal mainly with . Aristotle arts and sciences. But rhetoric we look upon as the power of ob-. the latter to beauty (cveTreta), of style. The birthplace of Rhetoric as an art was the island of Sicily. According to Cicero," Aristotle, no doubt in his lost history ofthe.

The Art Of Rhetoric Aristotle Pdf

Language:English, Portuguese, Japanese
Country:East Timor
Published (Last):24.08.2016
ePub File Size:20.35 MB
PDF File Size:15.17 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration Required]
Uploaded by: WALTRAUD

Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric | 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗣𝗗𝗙 on ResearchGate | Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric | Aristotle's art of rhetoric;greek rhetoric;modes of persuasion;character. Aristotle's Rhetoric, Spring ii deliberate, for which there are no arts ( Rhetoric a). What exactly is the nature of the reasoning rhetoric practices in this. Rhetoric by Aristotle, part of the Internet Classics Archive.

In Aristotle's view an orator will be even more successful when he just picks up the convincing aspects of a given issue, thereby using commonly-held opinions as premises. Since people have a natural disposition for the true Rhet. Of course, Aristotle's rhetoric covers non-argumentative tools of persuasion as well. It is understandable that several interpreters found an insoluble tension between the argumentative means of pertinent rhetoric and non-argumentative tools that aim at what is outside the subject.

It does not seem, however, that Aristotle himself saw a major conflict between these diverse tools of persuasion—presumably for the following reasons: i He leaves no doubt that the subject that is treated in a speech has the highest priority e. Thus, it is not surprising that there are even passages that regard the non-argumentative tools as a sort of accidental contribution to the process of persuasion, which essentially proceeds in the manner of dialectic cp.

His point seems to be that the argumentative method becomes less effective, the worse the condition of the audience is. This again is to say that it is due to the badness of the audience when his rhetoric includes aspects that are not in line with the idea of argumentative and pertinent rhetoric. The prologue of a speech, for example, was traditionally used for appeals to the listener, but it can also be used to set out the issue of the speech, thus contributing to its clearness.

Similarly, the epilogue has traditionally been used to arouse emotions like pity or anger; but as soon as the epilogue recalls the conclusions reached, it will make the speech more understandable. The Three Means of Persuasion The systematical core of Aristotle's Rhetoric is the doctrine that there are three technical means of persuasion.

Rhetoric ( Ars Rhetorica)

Further, methodical persuasion must rest on a complete analysis of what it means to be persuasive. A speech consists of three things: the speaker, the subject that is treated in the speech, and the listener to whom the speech is addressed Rhet.

It seems that this is why only three technical means of persuasion are possible: Technical means of persuasion are either a in the character of the speaker, or b in the emotional state of the hearer, or c in the argument logos itself.

If the speaker appears to be credible, the audience will form the second-order judgment that propositions put forward by the credible speaker are true or acceptable. This is especially important in cases where there is no exact knowledge but room for doubt. But how does the speaker manage to appear a credible person? Again, if he displayed i without ii and iii , the audience could doubt whether the aims of the speaker are good.

Finally, if he displayed i and ii without iii , the audience could still doubt whether the speaker gives the best suggestion, though he knows what it is. But if he displays all of them, Aristotle concludes, it cannot rationally be doubted that his suggestions are credible.

It must be stressed that the speaker must accomplish these effects by what he says; it is not necessary that he is actually virtuous: on the contrary, a preexisting good character cannot be part of the technical means of persuasion.

Thus, the orator has to arouse emotions exactly because emotions have the power to modify our judgments: to a judge who is in a friendly mood, the person about whom he is going to judge seems not to do wrong or only in a small way; but to the judge who is in an angry mood, the same person will seem to do the opposite cp. Many interpreters writing on the rhetorical emotions were misled by the role of the emotions in Aristotle's ethics: they suggested that the orator has to arouse the emotions in order i to motivate the audience or ii to make them better persons since Aristotle requires that virtuous persons do the right things together with the right emotions.

Thesis i is false for the simple reason that the aim of rhetorical persuasion is a certain judgment krisis , not an action or practical decision prohairesis. Aristotle's technique essentially rests on the knowledge of the definition of every significant emotion. According to such a definition, someone who believes that he has suffered a slight from a person who is not entitled to do so, etc. If we take such a definition for granted, it is possible to deduce circumstances in which a person will most probably be angry; for example, we can deduce i in what state of mind people are angry and ii against whom they are angry and iii for what sorts of reason.

Aristotle deduces these three factors for several emotions in the chapters II. With this equipment, the orator will be able, for example, to highlight such characteristics of a case as are likely to provoke anger in the audience. In comparison with the tricks of former rhetoricians, this method of arousing emotions has a striking advantage: The orator who wants to arouse emotions must not even speak outside the subject; it is sufficient to detect aspects of a given subject that are causally connected with the intended emotion.

For Aristotle, there are two species of arguments: inductions and deductions Posterior Analytics I. A deduction sullogismos is an argument in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the suppositions results of necessity through them Topics I. The inductive argument in rhetoric is the example paradeigma ; unlike other inductive arguments, it does not proceed from many particular cases to one universal case, but from one particular to a similar particular if both particulars fall under the same genus Rhet.

At first glance, this seems to be inconsistent, since a non-necessary inference is no longer a deduction. If the former interpretation is true, then Aristotle concedes in the very definition of the enthymeme that some enthymemes are not deductive. But if the latter interpretation which has a parallel in An.

Since enthymemes in the proper sense are expected to be deductive arguments, the minimal requirement for the formulation of enthymemes is that they have to display the premise-conclusion structure of deductive arguments.

This is why enthymemes have to include a statement as well as a kind of reason for the given statement. The reason why the enthymeme, as the rhetorical kind of proof or demonstration, should be regarded as central to the rhetorical process of persuasion is that we are most easily persuaded when we think that something has been demonstrated. Hence, the basic idea of a rhetorical demonstration seems to be this: In order to make a target group believe that q, the orator must first select a sentence p or some sentences p1 … pn that are already accepted by the target group; secondly he has to show that q can be derived from p or p1 … pn, using p or p1 … pn as premises.

Given that the target persons form their beliefs in accordance with rational standards, they will accept q as soon as they understand that q can be demonstrated on the basis of their own opinions. Consequently, the construction of enthymemes is primarily a matter of deducing from accepted opinions endoxa. That a deduction is made from accepted opinions—as opposed to deductions from first and true sentences or principles—is the defining feature of dialectical argumentation in the Aristotelian sense.

Thus, the formulation of enthymemes is a matter of dialectic, and the dialectician has the competence that is needed for the construction of enthymemes. This chapter includes a discussion of women's contributions to Renaissance rhetorical practice. Chapter 8 directs attention to Enlightenment theories of rhetoric. The chapter opens with a discussion of the intriguing theories of Giambattista Vim regarding the role of rhetoric in the evolution of human thought processes.

The chapter then directs attention to Britain and the diverse impulses animating the elocutionary theories of Thomas Sheridan, the psychological rhetoric of George Campbell, the argument theory of Richard Whately, and the stylistic concerns of Hugh Blair. The dramatic renewal of interest in rhetoric during the twentieth century is treated in Chapters 9, 10, and Olbrechts-'Qteca's The New Rhetoric. This chapter also considers the recent work of theorists and critics in the rhetoric of science, a movement that has brought traditional rhetorical concerns for strategic communication and audience adaptation to an arena not traditionally studied by rhetoricians.

Chapter 10 traces a different thread through twentieth-century rhetorical theory, one that runs from Kenneth Burke's dramatism through Wayne Booth's and Walter Fisher's narrative theories.

Theorists in this chapter see rhetoric as shaped both by situations common to human experience and narrative structures inherent to the human mind. Finally, Chapter 11 treats those recent theories of rhetoric and discourse that explore the intersection of language, culture, and power. Michel Foucault's insights into the close connection between the uses of discourse and the distribution of power in a society are discussed, as is Jacques Derrida's critique of the instability of language itself.

Richard Weaver's concern for rhetoric's potential to preserve cultural values over time is explored, as is the highly influential feminist criticism of this very phenomenon. Feminist rhetoricians are viewed as applying insights regarding PREFACE XV rhetoric and power to the tendency of the rhetorical tradition itself to exclude women from participation in social power structures.

The feminist critics' call for a new rhetoric which avoids the older metaphors of confrontation and domination is also considered.

The chapter also introduces George Kennedy's recent exploration of rhetorical traditions in non-Western cultures. I have included several items in the text to make it a more useful and convenient educational tool.

Each chapter includes a list of key terms, as well as questions for review and for discussion. Students should find the complete glossary of rhetorical terms useful for review. The bibliography can be of assistance to students who wish to do additional reading on a particular topic or theorist.

An instructor's manual is also available which recommends additional assignments, exercises, and examination questions. In this second edition I have incorporated recent insights from research into the history of rhetoric, I have also noted the tension between two competing views of rhetoric-the magical and the technical-in the chapters on the classical and renaissance periods.

A particular goal of the second edition has been to represent some of the advances in our understanding of the roles women have played in the history of rhetorical theory. A greater effort has also been made in this new edition to accommodate critical reactions to several of the theorists covered. In addition, clearer connections from one historical period to another have been developed in a number of cases. The centrality of symbolic activity to our social and private lives has driven the incessant human interest in symbols and their instrumental use.

The written record of this interest constitutes the history of rhetoric. Our reliance upon rhetorical interaction for the development and maintenance of cooperative social arrangements makes the history and theory of rhetoric a crucial study for all thinking people today.


Given the pluralistic nature of contemporary society and the resulting necessity of improving our means of finding working compromises through discourse, the study of rhetoric is perhaps more relevant today than it ever has been. It is my hope that this book conveys to readers the vitality of this essential art. I also hope to provide a sense of the intense intellectual electricity that crackles around the thinking of so many brilliant minds as they seek to understand for themselves, and to educate their own students about, the inherent power of artfully managed symbols.

James A. Hemck Acknowledgments For their constructive criticism and other assistance in preparing the second edition of The History and Theory of Rhetoric, I want to thank the students in my rhetorical theory course at Hope College. Their comments and questions have been of great help in clarifying the treatment of a number of topics in the second edition.

I appreciated the constructive and substantive criticism of our reviewers. My thanks to William E. Wiethoff of Indiana University, Lany A. As always, my wife Janet and our children supported me without complaint during the long process of developing and revising this text.

Their continued interest in this project has consistently provided much needed encouragement. But, as literary critic Wayne Booth suggests in the quotation above, the term rhetoric may pose some problems at the outset because of the various meanings it has acquired in our contemporary cultural setting. For example, for some people rhetoric is synonymous with "empty talk," or even "deception.

Meanwhile, rhetoric has become an important topic of study in recent years, and its significance to public discussion of important political, social, and even scientific issues has been widely recognized. Scholars and teachers have expressed great interest in the topic. Many colleges and universities are again offering courses in rhetoric after having banished the term from their curricula for years, and dozens of books are published every year with rhetoric in their titles.

Clearly, rhetoric arouses mixed feelings-it is widely condemned and widely studied, employed as an insult and recommended to students as an important subject of study. What is going on here?

Book files

Why all the confusion and ambiguity surrounding the term rhetoric? The negative attitude toward rhetoric reflected in comments such as "That's empty rhetoric" is not, as we shall see, of recent origin. In fact, one of the earliest and most influential discussions of rhetoric occurs in Plato's dialogue Gorgias, a work written in the opening decades of the fourth century B.

Plato, as his dialogue makes clear, takes a dim view of rhetoric, at least as practiced by some. The character Socrates, apparently representing Plato's own perspective, argues that the type of rhetoric being taught in Athens was simply a means by which "naturally clever" people "flatter" their unsuspecting listeners into agreeing with them and doing their bidding.

Plato condemns rhetoric as "foul" and "Ugly. Rhetoric bashing continues in an almost unbroken tradition from Plato's day to the present. In another great philosopher, John Locke, advanced a view of rhetoric not unlike, and likely influenced by, Plato's. Here is Locke writing in his famous and highly influential Essay on Human Understanding: If we speak of things as they are, we must allow that all the art of rhetoric, besides order and clearness; all the artificial and figurative application of words eloquence hath invented, are for nothing else but to insinuate wrong ideas, move the passions, and thereby mislead the judgment; and so indeed are perfect cheats..

CCNA Routing and Switching Complete Study Guide Exam 100-105, Exam 200-105, Exam 200-125

But it is also true that opinion about rhetoric has always been divided. Plato's criticisms of rhetoric were themselves answers to someone else's claims about its power and usefulness, and Locke's view has often been answered as well.

Recent writers have reevaluated rhetoric, and they have sometimes come to surprising conclusions. Wayne Booth is one of the twentieth-century's leading figures in literary studies. Just a few years ago Booth wrote that he believed rhetoric held "entire dominion over all verbal pursuits. For McKeon, rhetoric was best understood as "a universal and architectonic art. But what about architectonic? By this term, McKeon meant that rhetoric organizes and gives structure to the other arts and disciplines, that it is a kind of master discipline that exercises a measure of control over all other disciplines.

This is because rhetoric is, among other things, the study of how we organize and employ language effectively, and thus it becomes the study of how we organize our thinking on a wide range of subjects.

In apparent agreement with Booth and McKeon, Richard Lanham of the University of California has recently called for a return to rhetorical studies as a way of preparing us to understand the impact of computers on how we read and write.

Rather than developing a completely new theory for the computer age, Lanham argues that "we need to go back to the original Western thinking about reading and writing-the rhetorical paideia [educational program] that provided the backbone of Western education for 2, years.

Can Booth, McKeon, and Lanham be talking about the same "rhetoric" that Plato condemned as "foul and ugly," or about those elements of eloquence that Locke referred to as "perfect cheats"? Or, are we now at a point in our cultural history, as Lanham and others have suggested, where rhetoric can reestablish itself as an important study with insights to offer about a surprisingly broad spectrum of human activities?

In rhetoric do we have the disciplinary equivalent of Robert Louis 3 Stephenson's famous and frightening two-sided character, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a study that dramatically and without notice changes its character from benign to malevolent?

How is it that rhetoric can elicit such sharply opposed judgments about its nature or value from such eminent observers? A complete answer to this question requires some knowledge of rhetoric's long history, which is the subject of this book. But almost certainly rhetoric's mixed reviews have a lot to do with its association with persuasion, that most suspect but essential human activity.

A brief digression to explore this connection between rhetoric and persuasion will be worth our while. Rhetoric and Persuasion Though I will be taking the position that there is more to rhetoric than persuasion alone, rhetoric traditionally has been closely concerned with the techniques for gaining compliance. In fact, rhetoric has at times been understood simply as the study of persuasion.

This close association with persuasion has always been at the heart of the conflict over whether rhetoric is a neutral tool for bringing about agreements, or an immoral activity that ends in manipulation and deception. Rhetoric's intimate connection with persuasion has long prompted both suspidon and interest. After all, we all are leery of persuasion.

Who hasn't had a bad experience as the object of someone else's persuasive efforts? Think of the last time you knew you were being persuaded by a telephone solicitor, a religious advocate in an airport, a high-pressure salesperson, a politician, a professor, or simply a friend or family member.

Something inside you may have resisted the persuasion effort, and you may even have felt some irritation. But you may also have felt you were being drawn in by the appeal, that you were, in fact, being persuaded.

If the person doing the persuading had been employing the techniques of rhetoric, you would think you had some reason to distrust both rhetoric and the people who practice it. So, most of us have developed a healthy suspicion of persuasion, and perhaps a corresponding mistrust of rhetoric understood as the techniques of persuasion. At the same time, all of us seek to persuade others on a regular basis. Many professions, in fact, require a certain understating of and capacity to persuade.

Economist Deirdre McCloskey has written that "persuasion has become astonishingly important" to the economy. Based on Census Bureau data, she estimates that "more than 28 million out of million people in civilian employment-one quarter of the U. Who doesn't make arguments, advance opinions, and seek compliance from friends? Moreover, we typically engage in all these persuasive activities without thinking we are doing anything wrong.

In fact, it is difficult not to persuade. We may attempt to influence friends or family members to adopt our political views; we will happily argue the merits of a movie we like; we are that salesperson, religious advocate, or politician.

The "art" of rhetoric

In fact, it is difficult to imagine a human relationship in which persuasion has no role, or a human organization that does not depend to some degree on efforts to change other people's thoughts and actions. Consider some additional examples of how universal persuasion can be. We usually think of sports as a domain of physical competition, not of verbal battles. Yet, even sports involve disagreements about such things as the interpretation of rules, a referee's call, or which play to call.

And, these disagreements often are settled by arguments and appeals of various kinds, that is, by persuasion. British writer Michael Billig notes that many of the rules governing play in a sporting event are the result of rhetorical interactions about such issues as how much violence to allow on the field of play. He writes, "the rules of rugby and soccer were formulated in order to transform informal agreements, which had permitted all manner of aggressive play, into defined codes that restricted violence.

What about a technical field, like medicine? If medicine is a science, shouldn't rhetorical practices such as argument and persuasion be nonexistent? In fact, medical decisions often are made after a convincing case for or against a particular procedure has been advanced by one doctor in a persuasive exchange with other doctors. And, the decision-making exchange often is not limited to technical issues such as the interpretation of medical data such as the results of a blood test. To be sure, the arguments advanced typically will involve medical principles, but they are arguments nonetheless; they are intended to be persuasive, and they range beyond strict medical guidelines.

For instance, in medical dialogue we are likely to hear ethical concerns raised, the wishes of a family considered, and even questions of cost evaluated. Moreover, the patient involved often has to be persuaded to take a particular medicine or follow a specified diet or allow doctors to perform a surgical procedure.

Moreover, as physicians argue, rival medical theories may be in conflict and rival egos clash. Who should perform a needed corneal transplant on a famous politician? Shouldn't an imponant decision like this be resolved on the basis of medical criteria alone? Yet, even a question like this may be resolved on the basis of arguments between two well-known physicians at rival hospitals over which one of them is the best eye surgeon.

Even medicine, it appears, has its rhetorical side. Let's bring the focus down to a more personal level. Does romance involve persuasion? When I seek the attention of someone in whom I am romantically interested, I start to develop a case-though perhaps not an explicit and public one-about my own good qualities.

When in the vicinity of the individual concerned, I may attempt to appear humorous, intelligent, and considerate. My words and actions take on a rhetorical quality as I build the case for my own attractiveness. I may be convincing, or 5 may fail to convince, but in either event I have made choices about how to develop my appeal, so to speak. Once begun, romantic relationships go forward or backward on the basis of persuasive interactions on topics ranging from how serious the relationship should be to whether to attend a particular concert.

What about the marketplace? Business transactions, from marketing strategies to contract negotiations, frequently involve persuasive efforts. As McCloskey has pointed out, many people make their livings on the basis of their abilities as persuasive speakers. Nor is education immune from rhetorical influence. You often are aware that a p m fessor is advocating a point of view in a lecture that ostensibly presents simple "information,"or that classmates argue with one another hoping to persuade classmates to their point of view.

As a matter of fact, you have been reading an extended persuasive case for the importance of studying rhetoric. Textbooks, it should come as little surprise, often have embedded within them a persuasive agenda. So, efforts at persuasion mark many, perhaps all, of our interpersonal activities. In fact, we even persuade ourselves. The internal rhetoric of "arguing with yourself' accompanies most of life's decisions, big or small. So, though our experiences may leave us leery of persuasion, persuasion is also an important component of our occupational, social, and private lives.

If rhetoric is in part the systematic study of persuasion, recognizing how crucial persuasion is to daily life may suggest that this controversial art deserves our attention. To recognize what we might call "the pervasiveness of persuasiveness" is not to condemn persuasion or rhetoric.

Rather, it is to begin to appreciate the centrality of this activity to much of life, and to recognize that human beings are rhetorical beings. At this point it will be important to develop a more precise definition of rhetoric. Defining Rhetoric George Kennedy, a scholar writing on the history of rhetoric, has defined rhetoric as "the energy inherent in emotion and thought, transmitted through a system of signs, including language, to others to influence their decisions or actions.

Kennedy suggests that when we express emotions and thoughts to other people with the goal of influencing persuading them, we are engaged in rhetoric. And, as we have just seen, expressing ourselves in this way is a common human activity indeed. Notice that for Kennedy rhetoric involves "signs, including language.

So, what are symbols? An individual word such as boat is an example of a symbol, a general term referring to any mark, sign, sound, or gesture that communicates meaning based on social agreement. Individual symbols usually are part of a larger symbolic system, such as a language. Language is a familiar symbol system using written and spoken An Overview of Rhetoric words to communicate meaning.

But language is certainly not the only symbol system available for the communication of meaning. Several examples from the arts may help to establish the breadth of the human symbolic realm. Musical notation and performance constitute a symbol system, one that employs notes, markings, sound, key, harmony, and rhythm to communicate meanings.

Several years ago the musician Sting created a sinister aura in his song "I'll Be Watching You" by the use of a driving bass rhythm, frequently repeated chord changes, but relatively little melodic variation. The menacing song that resulted has been called a "musical ransom note. Three dancers in a row performing the same robotic movement may symbolize the tedium and regimentation of modem life.

Similarly, many gestures, postures, and facial expressions allow actors to communicate with audiences symbolically but without employing the symbols of spoken language. For instance, there is no actual connection between pondering a question and scratching your head, and yet a theatrical scratch of the scalp means "I don't know" or "I'm thinking about it" by a kind of unstated social agreement.

In a painting, the use of form, line, color, and arrangement can be symbolic. A stark line of dark clouds may symbolize impending disaster, even though clouds do not typically accompany actual disasters.

But, because storms and calamity are sometimes associated, we understand the artist's intent even when dark clouds appear in a picture in which a storm is not the likely source of danger.

The lines, shapes, and materials used in architecture often are employed symbolically to communicate meaning. The protests by veterans' groups that greeted the unveiling of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D. Is it significant that the monument, because it is below ground, cannot be seen from Capitol Hill?

The principal material used in the monument is black granite rather than the more traditional and triumphal white marble. The monument's polished surface is covered with the names of Americans who died in the war rather than with carved scenes of battle and victory.

What does the monument mean? One would be hard-pressed to find its meaning to be "A united America triumphs again in a foreign war. However, arts such as music, dance, theater, and architecture also provide symbolic resources for communicating meanings. In fact, human social life depends on our ability to use various symbol systems to comrnunicate meanings to one another. As we have seen, our social life also depends on using symbols for achieving the persuasion that brings about the cooperation, compromise, and coordination of effort inherent to forming and maintaining societies.

If persuasion is central to social organization, and if the art of rhetoric takes in the study of persuasion, then our lives as members of human communities are inherently and in- 7 escapably rhetorical, It may even be the case that individual conscious thought often is rhetorical in nature. Understanding rhetoric, then, may be crucial to the success and happiness of communities and of individuals.

Earlier we discussed rhetoric's connection with persuasion or influence. It is true that persuasion has long been an important goal of the art of rhetoric, and the principal reason people have studied the art. But I would like to expand the definition of this art to include other goals such as achieving clarity through the structured use of symbols, awakening our sense of beauty through the aesthetic potential in symbols, or bringing about mutual understanding through the careful management of common meanings attached to symbols.

Thus, I will define the art of rhetoric as the systematic study and intentional practice of effective symbolic expression. Effective here will mean achieving the purposes of the symbol-user, whether that purpose is persuasion, clarity, beauty, or mutual understanding. The art of rhetoric can render symbol use more persuasive, beautiful, memorable, forceful, thoughtful, clear, and thus generally more compelling.

In all of these ways, rhetoric is the art of employing symbols effectively. The systematic presentation of the art of rhetoric, descriptions of rhetoric's various functions, and explanations of how rhetoric achieves its goals are collectively known as rhetorical theory. Rhetorical discourse bears certain marks of this crafting that I will discuss in the following section. I will sometimes use the term rhetor RAY-tor to refer to an individual engaged in creating or presenting rhetorical discourse.

As we shall see later in the text, for most of its history the art of rhetoric has focused on persuasion employing the symbol system of language. This more traditional approach to rhetoric is still important.

But more recently both the goals of rhetoric and the symbolic resources available to those practicing the art have expanded dramatically. Does this mean that all communication, regardless of goal or symbol system employed, is rhetoric? Some scholars make communication and rhetoric synonymous, but this seems to ignore genuine and historically important distinctions among types of communication ranging from information and reports through casual conversations to outright propaganda.

I will be taking the position that rhetorical discourse is a particular type of communication possessing several identifying characteristics. What, then, are the features of rhetorical discourse that set it apart from other types of communication? The following section describes five distinguishing qualities of rhetorical discourse as we encounter it in writing, speaking, the arts, and other media of expression.

Rhetorical Discourse This section identifies five distinguishing characteristics of rhetorical discourse, the marks the art of rhetoric leaves on messages.

Rhetorical discourse characteristically is 1 planned, 2 adapted to an audience, 3 shaped by human motives, 4 responsive An Overview of Rhetoric to a situation, and 5 persuasion-seeking. Not all writing or speaking that might meaningfully be termed rhetoric clearly satisfies all of these criteria, but the criteria will serve as a starting point for identifying, understanding, and responding to rhetorical discourse.

We begin by considering rhetoric's most fundamental quality. Rhetoric Is Planned Regardless of the goal at which it aims, rhetorical discourse involves forethought or planning.

Thinking of rhetoric as planned symbol use directs our attention to the choices people make about how they will address their audiences. Correspondingly, an analogous metaphor uses the fourth term for the second or the second for the fourth. This principle can be illustrated by the following Aristotelian examples:. Examples a and b obey the optional instruction that metaphors can be qualified by adding the term to which the proper word is relative cp.

In example c , there is no proper name for the thing that the metaphor refers to. Metaphors are closely related to similes; but as opposed to the later tradition, Aristotle does not define the metaphor as an abbreviated simile, but, the other way around, the simile as a metaphor. The simile differs from the metaphor in the form of expression: While in the later tradition the use of metaphors has been seen as a matter of mere decoration, which has to delight the hearer, Aristotle stresses the cognitive function of metaphors.

Metaphors, he says, bring about learning Rhet. In order to understand a metaphor, the hearer has to find something common between the metaphor and the thing the metaphor refers to. Thus, a metaphor not only refers to a thing, but simultaneously describes the thing in a certain respect.

This is why Aristotle says that the metaphor brings about learning: Aristotle Aristotle, General Topics: Rapp lmu. Works on Rhetoric 2. The Agenda of the Rhetoric 3. Rhetoric as a Counterpart to Dialectic 4. The Purpose of Rhetoric 4. The Three Means of Persuasion 6. The Enthymeme 6. The Topoi 7. How to Say Things with Words 8.

The Agenda of the Rhetoric The structure of Rhet. Rhetoric as a Counterpart to Dialectic Aristotle stresses that rhetoric is closely related to dialectic.

This analogy between rhetoric and dialectic can be substantiated by several common features of both disciplines: Rhetoric and dialectic are concerned with things that do not belong to a definite genus or are not the object of a specific science. Rhetoric and dialectic rely on accepted sentences endoxa.

Rhetoric and dialectic are not dependent on the principles of specific sciences. Rhetoric and dialectic are concerned with both sides of an opposition. Rhetoric and dialectic rely on the same theory of deduction and induction. Rhetoric and dialectic similarly apply the so-called topoi. This is why there are also remarkable differences between the two disciplines: Dialectic can be applied to every object whatsoever, rhetoric is useful especially in practical and public matters.

Dialectic proceeds by questioning and answering, while rhetoric for the most part proceeds in continuous form. Dialectic is concerned with general questions, while rhetoric is concerned for the most part with particular topics i. Certain uses of dialectic apply qualified endoxa , i. Rhetoric must take into account that its target group has only restricted intellectual resources, whereas such concerns are totally absent from dialectic.

While dialectic tries to test the consistency of a set of sentences, rhetoric tries to achieve the persuasion of a given audience. Non-argumentative methods are absent from dialectic, while rhetoric uses non-argumentative means of persuasion.

The Three Means of Persuasion The systematical core of Aristotle's Rhetoric is the doctrine that there are three technical means of persuasion.

Aristotle, Rhetoric (1964).pdf

Supplement on The Brevity of the Enthymeme 6. But there are several types of sign-arguments too; Aristotle offers the following examples: Rhetoric I. Wise men are good, since Pittacus is good. This woman has a child, since she has milk. She is pregnant, since she is pale.

Supplement on the Topoi of the Rhetoric 8. How to Say Things with Words Rhet. These four types are exemplified as follows: This principle can be illustrated by the following Aristotelian examples: Analogy Metaphor a The cup to Dionysus as shield to Ares.

Glossary of Selected Terms Accepted opinions: Bibliography Allen, James. Barnes, Jonathan. Berti ed. The Posterior Analytics. Bitzer, L.

Burnyeat, Myles. The Logic of Persuasion. Furley and A. Nehamas eds. Princeton University Press. Cooper, John M. Cope, Edward Meredith. An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric. Cambridge The Rhetoric of Aristotle, with a Commentary. Revised and edited by John Edwin Sandys. Cambridge University Press. Cronkhite, Garry L.

Dow, Jamie. Les Belles Lettres. Erickson, Keith V. Fortenbaugh, William W. Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle. Transaction Publishers. Freese, John Henry. London and Cambridge, Mass.: Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press. Furley, David J. Aristotle's Rhetoric. Garver, Eugene. The University of Chicago Press. Grimaldi, William M. Aristotle, Rhetoric I-II. A Commentary. New York: Fordham University Press. Halliwell, Stephen.

Kassel, Rudolf. Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica.

Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Kennedy, George A. Aristotle, On Rhetoric. Oxford University Press. Leighton, Stephen. Anagnostopoulos ed.

Madden, Edward H. Crossroads of Logic, Rhetoric and Metaphysics. McBurney, James H. Miller, Arthur B. Body and Soul.

Mirhady, David C. Influences on Peripatetic Rhetoric.

Natali, Carlo Primavesi, Oliver. Die aristotelische Topik. Raphael, Sally. Rapp, Christof. Aristoteles, Rhetorik. Translation, Introduction, and Commentary, 2 Vol. Akademie Verlag. Roberts, W.

Ross ed. Clarendon Press. II — Rubinelli, Sara R. Ryan, Eugene E. Aristotle's Theory of Rhetorical Argumentation , Montreal: Seaton, R. Rorty, Amelie O.

Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric. University of California Press. Ross, W. Aristotelis ars rhetorica. Solmsen, Friedrich. Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik.However, in the rhetorical context there are two factors that the dialectician has to keep in mind if she wants to become a rhetorician too, and if the dialectical argument is to become a successful enthymeme.

Clarendon Press. The five most common are finance, war and peace, national defense, imports and exports, and the framing of laws. We will turn our attention away from the kind of discourse we would call rhetorical, and emphasize the art that helps to create such discourse. Analogy Metaphor a The cup to Dionysus as shield to Ares.

Examples a and b obey the optional instruction that metaphors can be qualified by adding the term to which the proper word is relative cp.

If Aristotle had composed collections of previous arts of rhetoric, including those which were focused on the parts of the speech, it is not difficult to imagine that he took one of these schemes, perhaps the one he regarded as the least bad, in order to illustrate how he himself would make use of the various parts of a speech.

Immediately after the introduction of this doctrine he continues: Further, the terminology of the chapters on taxis is not always in line with the rest of the Rhetoric. Your friend probably doesn't have to add this reason to his argument because you both understand that it is implied.

CANDYCE from Fairfield
See my other posts. I am highly influenced by taekkyeon. I do enjoy exploring ePub and PDF books soon .