To futher research the rhetoric of Aristotle, I studied some readings of classical rhetoric, written by Aristotle himself. These readings, although a bit complicated at times, were very in depth and helped deepen my knowledge of rhetoric.

The reading began by explaining that rhetoric is a counterpart of dialectic. It explains that this is a subject relevant to everyone because it is something that everyone takes part in whether it be with a familiarity out of habit or by chance. We use it while criticizing or upholding an argument, or while defending ourselves or accusing others. It states that by examining these matters, they can clearly be put into a system. It explains that the system is arranged according to the rules of art only concerned with proofs and that proof is a sort of demonstration since people are most easily convinced when something is demonstrated. The reading declares the strongest of the rhetorical proofs is the enthymeme, which is a kind of syllogism, an dthe other kind of proof is an example.

Next Aristotle talks about rhetoric and persuasion. He states that rhetoric is useful because the true and just are naturally superior to their opposites. And that which is true is naturally easier to prove and persuade people toward. But persuasion can't be based on knowledge alone, even if it is the most accurate and scientific knowledge. One must be able to counteract false arguments. The reading says that one application of rhetoric is proving opposites. As well as persuasion, another function of rhetoric is finding a means of persuasion. At this point the reading more clearly defines rhetoric as the faculty of discovering possible mens of persuasion in reference to any subject. Aristotle then points out that rightly used, the science of persuasion can offer the greatest benefits, but wrongly used, it can offer the equal amount of harm.

The next subject Aristotle covers in the reading is proofs. It explains that some are real, meaning things already in existence, and some are artificial, meaning things we create. It lists and explains three types of proofs furnished by speech. The first depends on the moral character of the speaker. The speaker persuades by moral character when we have complete confidence in him or her. The second depends on putting the audience into a certain frame. A speaker persuades an audience when the speech is delivered in a way that erouses emotion in the audience. The third depends on speech itself, when truth is established by means of persuasion in each individual subject. The reading points out that since the proofs are effected by these means, people must be capable of logical reasoning, studying characters and the virtues, and emotions in order to grasp them.

Next Aristotle explains the meanings of probabilities, signs, and necessary signs; all of which are the propositions of the rhetorician. An enthymeme is a kind of syllogism deduced from a few premises. Signs are used to construct syllogisms. Not all signs are necessary because if any are well-known, there is no need to mention them. The ones that are needed are called necessary signs. The ones that are made up of something that generally happens are called probablities.

The next subject the reading explains is the three types of rhetorical speeches. They include deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. It explains that there is a special time when each of these is appropriate. The deliberative is concerned with the future; the speaker advises about things to come. The forensic is concerned with the past; it is in reference to things done in the past that the speaker defends. And the epideictic is most appropriate for the present; it examines the existing condition of things that all those concerned have in view.

Finally, Aristotle lays out the three things that make a speaker credible. He lists them as having good sense, virtue, and goodwill. He states that all three are necessary and the speaker who possesses all three will convince his or her audience.

I found this reading to be very confusing as well as informative, but that is only natural since it was written by Aristotle back in his time. The wording used makes it somewhat difficult to understand. I also feel that it is not very well organized and jumps around from subject to subject. The reading does, however, go into great detail about rhetoric once you make your way into the information. It basically is a more in-depth look at the information in the rhetoric chapter of Em Griffen's book A First Look at Communication. The examples in the reading are not as clear or as relevant today as those pointed out in the Griffen's book. Still, I would recommend checking this reading out to anyone who is interested in learning more about rhetoric.

In my research of Aristotelian rhetoric I began by telling you that rhetoric is a counterpart of dialectic. To learn more about relational dialectics click here.

Home