Identify a question or a concept: What questions do you have about course concepts so far? Which concept would you like more practice applying or do you think is the most confusing?
1). Identify a question or a concept: What questions do you have about course concepts so far? Which concept would you like more practice applying or do you think is the most confusing?
2). Identify a part of the reading to help you answer what you wrote for question 1
Find a quote from the reading that you think can help answer what you wrote for question 1. Where might you find information about the concept you identified?
3). Identify an example to use for practice.
Provide an example of public rhetoric you would like to use to practice applying that concept. This can be a speech, song, movie, television show, social media post, or any other type of public persuasion, so it can’t be a personal or hypothetical example.
Requirements: 1 page
Aristotle: Rhetoric as Method
Background
Our final key figure in discussing rhetoric as a practical art is Aristotle (384-322 BC). A wide-ranging scholar producing work in philosophy, physical science, literature, and poetry, he advised Alexander the Great and wrote a little something about basically everything. In Communication Studies, we focus most on his contributions to rhetoric and ethics, with a focus on the former. The rediscovery and incorporation of Aristotle’s works in the early part of the 20th century in argumentation, debate, and public speaking classrooms in the United States set the stage for the rhetorical revival that followed the Second World War and shaped the nature of our field. As will be discussed below, his approach to rhetoric is a mid-point between the Sophists and Plato, agreeing with the Sophists (who he also didn’t like) that rhetoric had a practical use, and with Plato that rhetoric could be misused in the wrong hands. For Aristotle, the importance of studying rhetoric was as much in our ability to recognize it and defend ourselves against its use as it was a practical strategy for advocacy.
For Aristotle, rhetoric is a method, a way of better understanding communication in particular situations of uncertainty. He defines rhetoric as “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion” ()
of Aristotle in the Public Domain. From
We’ll begin with some and then move on to his most influential concepts for the foundations of rhetorical theory.
Plato became one of the most prominent thinkers in Athens, and it was in his school that Aristotle enrolled as a student, eventually becoming a teacher. Though Aristotle and Plato were close, they disagreed on key points. For example, while Plato condemned the art of rhetoric, Aristotle believed in the possibility of rhetoric as a means of creating community. Because of this and other disagreements, when Plato died, Aristotle left and taught elsewhere.
Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric, which encompassed the following topics: establishing rhetoric as an art, the uses of rhetoric, the definition of rhetoric, the proofs, and the types of discourse. The terms ethos, pathos, and logos come from Aristotle’s work.
He focused on determining what makes a specific rhetorical act successful, which is what we would call rhetorical criticism today. His work forms the basis of our understanding of rhetoric today. He defined rhetoric as the ability to see, in each particular case, the available means of persuasion.
Two parts of this definition are particularly significant: the terms “in each particular case” and “persuasion.” The former suggests that Aristotle recognized the importance of context and audience; that a specific situation with a particular audience might direct the speaker, or rhetor, to create a message in a form that might look different in another context with another audience.
Aristotle also recognized the importance of audience analysis–that different things appeal to different people. The second part of his definition dealing with persuasion suggests that Aristotle conceptualized a very specific and limited scope for rhetoric. Rhetoric exists in contexts where a person or a group of people is engaged in the process of communicating for the purpose of changing another in some way.
As Dr. Palmer notes, persuasion was an important part of public life and was central for Aristotle. While he agreed with Plato that truth should be obvious, he also suggested that a good speaker or advocate needed to energize the truth for its listeners so that they would see its importance. For Aristotle, while there was some knowledge that was definite and could be proven by science, some was indefinite – we could never know for certain. And while philosophy could provide some answers to big metaphysical questions (values like justice, the nature of our existence), for everyday, practical questions without definite answers – guilt or innocence, virtue and vice, good and bad policy – we needed rhetoric.
Aristotle, in his own words:
Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all [people] and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all [people] make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all [people] attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art…..
It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated…..
Rhetoric is useful (1) because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly. Moreover, (2) before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct. Here, then, we must use, as our modes of persuasion and argument, notions possessed by everybody, as we observed in the Topics when dealing with the way to handle a popular audience. Further, (3) we must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him. No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do this. Both these arts draw opposite conclusions impartially. Nevertheless, the underlying facts do not lend themselves equally well to the contrary views. No; things that are true and things that are better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe in. Again, (4) it is absurd to hold that a man ought to be ashamed of being unable to defend himself with his limbs, but not of being unable to defend himself with speech and reason, when the use of rational speech is more distinctive of a human being than the use of his limbs. And if it be objected that one who uses such power of speech unjustly might do great harm, that is a charge which may be made in common against all good things except virtue, and above all against the things that are most useful, as strength, health, wealth, generalship. A man can confer the greatest of benefits by a right use of these, and inflict the greatest of injuries by using them wrongly.
Part 2
Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This is not a function of any other art. Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own particular subject-matter; for instance, medicine about what is healthy and unhealthy, geometry about the properties of magnitudes, arithmetic about numbers, and the same is true of the other arts and sciences. But rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us; and that is why we say that, in its technical character, it is not concerned with any special or definite class of subjects.
Of the modes of persuasion some belong strictly to the art of rhetoric and some do not. By the latter I mean such things as are not supplied by the speaker but are there at the outset-witnesses, evidence given under torture, written contracts, and so on. By the former I mean such as we can ourselves construct by means of the principles of rhetoric. The one kind has merely to be used, the other has to be invented.
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. This kind of persuasion, like the others, should be achieved by what the speaker says, not by what people think of his character before he begins to speak. It is not true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses. Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile. It is towards producing these effects, as we maintain, that present-day writers on rhetoric direct the whole of their efforts. This subject shall be treated in detail when we come to speak of the emotions. Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question.
There are, then, these three means of effecting persuasion. The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions-that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited. It thus appears that rhetoric is an offshoot of dialectic and also of ethical studies….
Aristotelian Concepts Explained:
The Artistic Proofs: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos
The excerpt above makes reference to the artistic proofs, though he doesn’t call them that. Here is an explanation of the artistic and inartistic proofs
Let’s talk about some of the most commonly discussed concepts in rhetoric and rhetorical theory: ethos, pathos, and logos, which are also known as the artistic proofs. The phrase “artistic proofs” means that they are the elements of persuasion that originate from the speaker, rather than from inartistic sources, or the data the speaker uses but did not ‘originate,’ ‘invent,’ or ‘create.’ Entire courses on rhetorical theory have been built around these concepts. They correspond to the major premises of Aristotle’s book, the Rhetoric, and form three pillars that much present-day rhetorical theory is built upon.
Ethos, or the appeal to authority. These are the ethical proofs derived from the moral character of the speaker.
Pathos, or the appeal to the emotions. The objective of pathos is to put the hearer into a certain frame of mind using what the speaker already knows about their audience.
Logos, or the appeal to reason, logic, and the word. These are the proofs contained in the speech itself when a real or apparent truth is demonstrated. The two modes of logical proof that Aristotle describes are induction and deduction. Induction refers to “bottom-up” reasoning; deduction refers to principles applied from the “top-down.”
The Genres of Rhetoric/Oratory
Aristotle’s explanation of logos also describes three genres of rhetoric, which correspond to different “tenses” in which a speech may be made. These include the forensic, the epideictic, and the deliberative. In each of these, rhetoric manages some uncertainty: uncertainty over what is and what is not; uncertainty over whether to praise or to blame; and uncertainty over what one should or should not do.
The forensic genre of rhetoric is about matters of fact, what is and is not, what did or did not happen. The forensic corresponds to the past. The site of forensic arguments is typically the judicial system and the courts. Today, the word “forensic” has meaning specifically in a criminal justice context. There, and on “forensic” science television shows, the problem is reconstructing the past, what did or did not happen, who did or did not perpetrate the act.
The epideictic genre of rhetoric is about matters of praise or blame, whether to celebrate or to denounce. It corresponds to the now, the place between past and future. Epideictic speeches are traditionally speeches like eulogies, special-occasion speeches, or toasts; other versions of epideictic could include newspaper opinion-editorials, news-comedy hybrids, or pundit pieces that try to offer ‘spin’ to politicize a person or issue. They can also be speeches, images, and text that highlight a “now” as a particularly urgent or important moment of transition or change.
The deliberative genre of rhetoric is about policy and what should or should not be done. The deliberative corresponds to the future and the course of action that should be taken to attain it. It is traditionally associated with lawmaking and legislature. A speech about the decision to impeach, for instance, is a deliberative one: it is a question of policy and the path that people should pursue.
The Topics and the Nature of the Good: Topos and Eudaimonia
As part of rhetorical training, Aristotle indicated that the study of rhetoric could help us “invent” or create arguments. If you have ever felt stuck when trying to write a paper or generate new ideas, you are most likely stuck at the invention phase of writing where coming up with new ideas on your own can be tricky. Aristotle said an understanding of the most common places to find arguments (experiences, social values, and common concerns) and the concepts of what constituted “the good life” for various audiences were central places to begin creating arguments – and to evaluate arguments that had been created.
If there are valuable ideas drawn from Ancient Greek thinking about rhetoric, one place to look would be the terms “common” and “good.” Although we would be hard-pressed to translate the terms topos, or ‘commonplace,’ and eudaimonia, or ‘flourishing’ as “common good,” each of these roots teaches us something about the art of speaking well and the kinds of goals that this art may have.
Topos refers to a “commonplace,” a site or location, most often invoked in speech, that is cited to be recognizable to a large audience. “Helen of Troy” would have been commonplace in ancient Athens because audiences would have known who this person was when a speaker would bring them up. Topoi are essential to rhetoric. Without some shared sense of what the speaker and audience are discussing, communication cannot happen. Communication between a speaker and an audience relies on translating experience. The speaker has to tell the audience that they know and understand their experience to be credible or worthy of attention. The audience has to recognize some aspect of their own experience in what the speaker is saying. That site of mutual recognition, the place of commonality, is a topos. The plural of topos is topoi. Topoi allow us to compose writing and imagine speeches because they put us in the frame of mind where we have to consider what is similar between us and our imagined audience.
Eudaimonia refers to “flourishing” and is sometimes translated as “the good life” or “happiness” as a principle of morality. The Greek term “eudaimon” is composed of two parts: “eu” means “well,” and “daimon” means “divinity” or “spirit.” Therefore, to be eudaimon is to live in a way that is well-favored by a god. But Aristotle never calls attention to this etymology in his ethical writings, and it seems to have little influence on his thinking. It means the attainment of one’s highest self and an orientation toward the preservation of life. For Aristotle, Eudaimonia is the greatest end for man collectively and individually.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
