help for 5 pages

 

2282_9W1_ENGL_143_0001_W000 - STDS IN RHETORICAL THEORY - O - W000 (OCTOBER 2014 0001)

5.2 - Submit Midterm Research Paper

William Lloyd on Fri, Nov 21 2014, 8:49 AM

 

51% match

Submission ID: 61838904

· Lloyd_Midterm.docx

Word Count: 1,761

Attachment ID: 82271100

51%

Citations (8/8)

1. 1Another student's paper

2. 2 http://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-literature/aristotles-definition-of-rhetoric-english-literature-essay.php

3. 3Another student's paper

4. 4Another student's paper

5. 5Another student's paper

6. 6Another student's paper

7. 7Another student's paper

8. 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Running Header:

ARISTOTLE’S VIEW ON RHETORIC AND DIALECTIC 1 ARISTOTLE’S VIEW ON RHETORIC AND DIALECTIC 2

Aristotle’s View on Rhetoric and Dialectic William Lloyd Pamela Swan ENGL 143 / Studies in Rhetorical Theory 11/21/14

Abstract:

Aristotle defined rhetoric as the ability to see that which is possibly persuasive in each given case (Herrick, 2009). According to Aristotle’s definition rhetoric ability comes about when an individual has purposed in it from the beginning. 1 There are differences between rhetoric and dialectic.  2 Rhetoric uses continuous exposition whereas dialectic proceeds by way of question and answer and only the logical arguments are used.  3 In modern politics rhetoric is used similarly as used in the ancient times of Aristotle.  The rhetoric art in ancient time was used in courts of law.  People applied rhetoric to win cases in courts of justice.  2 This is evident in many governments and countries in the world which have found the ancient Greece political structure useful and meaningful.

Aristotle defined rhetoric as the ability to see that which is possibly persuasive in each given case (Herrick, 2009). This implied that if a rhetorician would be in a situation the same as that of a physician where each would have to carefully choose what is desirable; the rhetorician would have thorough grasp of his method when he discovers all the available ways of persuasion, though he might not convince everyone. According to Aristotle’s definition rhetoric ability comes about when an individual has purposed in it from the beginning. 1 There are differences between rhetoric and dialectic.  2 Rhetoric uses continuous exposition whereas dialectic proceeds by way of question and answer and only the logical arguments are used.  4 Another difference is that, dialectic deals with general questions whereas rhetoric deals with practical questions (Aristotle, 2007).

5 Aristotle stressed that rhetoric is related to dialectic. He offered several formulae to describe the relationship between rhetoric and dialectic. 5 First, Aristotle said that rhetoric is a counterpart to dialectic.  Secondly, he called rhetoric an outgrowth of dialectic and the study of character.  Thirdly, Aristotle argued that rhetoric is part of dialectic and resembles it.  When Aristotle argued that rhetoric is a counterpart to dialectic, he alluded to Plato’s Gorgias, where rhetoric was ironically said to be a counterpart to cookery in the soul. In his definition, Plato used ‘antistrophos’ to show an analogy. 5 Dialectic is for academic or private practice of attacking and maintaining an argument whereas rhetoric is for public of accusing an opponent or defending oneself. 6 This is according to Aristotle.  7 Aristotle divided the art of rhetoric into distinct categories which include ethos (Aristotle, 1967).

Ethos is derived from the good character of the speaker, and means showing moral character. 2 During public speaking the speaker should establish ethos.  There three distinct categories of ethos that are important to a speaker in establishing ethos when in public speaking. These categories of ethos are; arête which is the virtue of goodness, phronesis which is the wisdom and practical skills, and eunoia which is having goodwill towards the audience (Cooper, 1993).

2 Rhetoric has a big role in the present day politics. Often, the politicians utilize their rhetoric capability to campaign effectively. 2 Politicians have the ability to identify that what is persuasive to the public in order to win their support. Therefore, rhetoric can either be used to advance something that is good or bad. 2 Some certain individuals argue vehemently that rhetoric tools are only required by people whose aim and objective is to convince people while they hide their real aims. Nonetheless, this is not true because even the people who require communicating the truth require rhetorical tools. 2 This is in line with the modern politics where politicians require using rhetoric to explain their views to the people.

Politicians utilize rhetoric to evoke emotions in the people. 2 Normally, politicians use rhetoric to ask and convince the public to vote for them in the elective positions. Rhetoric is regarded as non-argumentative way of convincing people. Nowadays, politicians utilize rhetoric to argue their cases out (Sen, 1999). 2 In fact, they would want to argue their acceptance that they will perform well to the people once they are elected.  4 Furthermore, politicians use rhetoric ability to argue their cases in court, and argue and articulate certain things on the constitution.  2 Therefore, rhetorical art is very vital in delivering speech to the people.

3 In modern politics rhetoric is used similarly as used in the ancient times of Aristotle. The rhetoric art in ancient time was used in courts of law.  People applied rhetoric to win cases in courts of justice.  Nowadays rhetoric is used by the defendants in courts to win their cases.  2 In the times of Aristotle, politicians mainly used rhetoric when coming up with people’s constitution.  The judges in courts also are required to use rhetoric when making decisions about certain cases on elaborating what is just and what is unjust. In addition, the legislators use rhetoric to make decisions on what are disadvantages or advantages in specific future actions they undertake. Thus, there are a number of genres of rhetoric that correspond to a variety of audience. 2 Depending on the different types of people, there are three genres of rhetoric (Allen, 2007).

Forensic rhetoric is a type of rhetoric which mainly focuses on persuading an audience that a specific action undertaken in the past was just. Deliberative rhetoric is another type of rhetoric which mainly focuses at making people believe that a specific future action due to be undertaken will be advantages. 2 Finally, epideictic rhetoric mainly focuses at making audience see that a specific subject or person is noble.

In the current society rhetoric is very important since it helps to perpetuate the cause of justice in the people’s society. 4 For instance, Martin Luther King used rhetoric to convince and bring people together during the civil rights movements. At the time, many people appeared un-convincible using scientific or logical explanation. Hence, the art of rhetoric was effective in making persuasive arguments that swayed people`s opinions (Sen, 1999). Skeptical people require the art of rhetoric so that a person can be able to deal with malicious arguments. 2 The art of rhetoric ensures that an individual to argue both sides of a specific issue. An individual should be in a position to defend oneself against any verbal attack in a manner similar as to when is defending oneself against physical attack. 2 These are the same ways in which rhetoric in ancient times of Aristotle and modern lives are used, but there are a few differences. During the time of Aristotle rhetoric was the main discipline. 2 It was majorly taught in Greece where it began with Aristotle. Rhetoric of ancient depended upon the discussion and the development brought up by the famous rhetoricians.

The political systems and processes have changed over time and are completely different from that of Greece during Aristotle’s time. 2 The ancient Greece consisted of many independent city states which have no established political system.  Despite these, Greek people had a specific religion, culture and language. The Greek system of government was a simpler one because it was fragmented in nature and did not seem to have tribal alignment. 2 Athenians formed the first democratic government after the end of tyranny rule.  They actually formed a democratic government to deter aristocracy from regaining power.

After the formation democratic government in Athens, Greece, other states founded their democracies, though others continued their traditional system of government. Currently Greece is a parliamentary republic system of government whose head is the president. There are mainly two dominant political parties (Tsipouri&Xanthakis, 2004).This shows how political system and process has changed over time in many states. Many states which were led by dictators whose regimes caused suffering to their subjects, have since attained democracy where the leader of the government is elected by the citizens directly.

2 The modern political system and process has a wide range of changes through its evolution since its inception in the ancient Greece, which had a number of independent states. This was contrary to many other societies which were governed by minority people who were the elites of the society. The ancient Greece had a number of visible characteristics regarding its foundation of the political culture. 2 The existent political regions in Greece were divided rivers, hills and mountains.  Furthermore, Greece people were united, had one goal, one religion, one culture and spoke the same language. All these describe how various societies looked in the ancient time.

Furthermore, the Greece people were sensitive of their origins and had well established tradition. Other societies knew their backgrounds and did not attempt to alter the Greek politics. Ancient Greece had a strong union among its tribes, unlike other many other ancient societies and even some modern societies which are very sensitive to tribe political settings.

The Greece political system significantly influenced many to many states and countries since the ancient times. 2 Many countries have adopted the political structure similar to that of Greece. Some states and countries have been quite successful exactly political structure like that of ancient Greece, but some are yet to achieve (Tsipouri&Xanthakis, 2004). Many of the countries that have become successful in adopting ancient Greek-like system of government are found in Europe. 2 The specific countries have a characteristic of one dominant language used which is an important element towards their unity. Many African countries have difficulty in adopting ancient Greek-like system of governance especially with the tribal divide and the various tribes often antagonize each other in every aspect of governance.

In summary, the ancient Greece structure of governance has impacted significantly in giving new ideas to many countries and states with regards to creation of political structures in the respective countries and states. 2 This is evident in many governments and countries in the world which have found the ancient Greece political structure useful and meaningful.

Reference Aristotle, A. (2007). On Rhetoric: 2 A Theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford: 2Oxford University Press.

Cooper, J. M. 1993. “Rhetoric, Dialectic, and the Passions.”In Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 11: 175–198.

Aristotle, A. (1967). Aristotle: Poetics. Michigan: 2 University of Michigan Press, Herrick, J. (2009). 2 The History and Theory of Rhetoric:  An Introduction (4th Ed.). London: Mc-Craw.

Allen, J. 2007. “Aristotle on the Disciplines of Argument: Rhetoric, Dialectic, Analytic” In Rhetorical 25: 87–108.

Tsipouri, L., &Xanthakis, M. (2004). Can corporate governance be rated? Ideas based on the Greek experience. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(1), 16-28.

Sen, A. K. (1999). 8 Democracy as a universal value.  Journal of democracy, 10(3), 3-17.