Sunday, August 29, 2010

Aristotle's Rhetoric

Aristotle seems to have a love hate relationship with rhetoric. He believes that it should be used only for good, and never for bad. For example, in the text, he talks about trials and how lawyers use rhetoric to sway the judge to let guilty people walk free. He does not think rhetoric should be used to twist the truth and convince people of falsehoods. He thinks it should be used as an art form of oratory which he puts into three groups: political, forensic, and ceremonial. As mentioned before, forensic involves things like trials where rhetoric should be used to speak truth, not twist it into something to convince people otherwise. Political rhetoric either convinces us to do or not do something. Finally ceremonial rhetoric deals with the present and finds it useful to bring up the past and guess the future.

In class we also spoke about syllogism, enthymemes, and their relationship to rhetoric. Syllogism boils down to the simple mathematical principle called the transitive property. Basically, if a = b, and b = c, then a = c. Again, the example we spoke of in class was "If Plato is a man, and man is mortal, then Plato is mortal." If we used the transitive property in this example it would be Plato = man, man = mortal, Plato = mortal. The difference between this and an enthymeme is the middle step, or b = c. You then must assume that fact to come to a conclusion. With the math example that is easy, if a = b and a = c, then obviously b = c for that to work. When it comes to actual English phrases, it becomes harder to determine the connecting principle.

So how is an enthymeme like rhetoric? It is not a clear cut process like a syllogism, we know this because people use rhetoric to twist the truth, like people defending convicted murderers. They essentially insert their own connecting step to make their enthymeme a false syllogism. But when rhetoric is used for good, the connecting step can be the correct statement, or one that is appealing to the audience. The audience appeal can come in three flavors: logos, pathos, and ethos.

Logos is essentially logic. A professor uses logos to convey information that the student can then interpret and understand. Pathos deals with emotion, so when used in rhetoric it appeals to the audiences emotions, whether it is negative or positive. For example a story or movie may make you cry, which is playing off your emotions. The same for if you were to laugh. Finally, ethos deals with the moral side of rhetoric. A speakers character and moral is an example of ethos. John Leopold says "The personality of the orator outweighs the issues."

6 comments:

  1. Its pretty interesting that as intelligent Aristotle was, he was slightly naive in his beliefs of the use or rhetoric as only a factual prose in the courtroom. I think he would be turning over in his grave to see how current day lawyers use emotions (something he specifically prohibited in the use of rhetoric in the courts) to influence juries to produce the verdict they are paid to achieve. But then again their idea of democracy has vastly changed as well over the two mellenia since his writings....I guess all things are subject to change.

    ReplyDelete
  2. After reading everyone's posts on this subject I think we may be focusing too much on the forensic side of things, and I wish I knew more about his thoughts on ceremonial rhetoric. It sounds like it would be utilized at celebrations and special occasions to praise others and inspire the crowd. While rhetoric seems evil and wrong, maybe we're only hearing one side of the story.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well rhetoric only seems evil and wrong when used to twist the truth, but Aristotle seems to think rhetoric is one of the truest forms of art. I do agree I wish we knew more about the ceremonial side, I think it probably deals with praise of others like you said and crowd inspiration.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Going off what Daniel said about using emotions with rhetoric, that in essence is selling, whether it be a product, ourselves, or even an idea. Understanding that our emotions actually play a key role in our critical thinking (despite what 'common sense' may tell us) will help us separate and dissect the two.

    Rhetoric, much like sales, is another tool to communicate and spread ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for breaking all of this down. The way that you explained rhetoric makes a lot more sense to me than how Aristotle explained it. That being said, I think that people tend to look at forensic rhetoric the most because it is what comes to mind when people hear the word rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yeah, I agree that you did a good job of breaking all this down in order to make sense of all the things Aristotle was saying.

    ReplyDelete