Analysis of Aristotle on Rhetoric

Analysis of Aristotle’s Rhetoric
Aristotle's Book 1 makes known the meanings of rhetoric and provides a look into the various elements that rhetoric entails. Aristotle starts out Book 1 by defining a few terms. Rhetoric is described as “the counterpart of Dialectic,” (Aristotle, 3). These are both forms of argumentation, although rhetoric is persuasive, and dialectic the more logical. They have many similarities that can be seen from an emotional to a factual stance. All men possess both, but you cannot use any scientific method to prove either. In my opinion, it is more of a liberal art form. It is in our human nature to argue for protection, or to change the opinions of others. It can truly be an art form. Here he explains that persuasion in rhetoric is the core of the argument, and everything else is an accomplice to the former.
Persuasion deals directly with enthymemes, described as using emotions to further the argument. They vary from person to person because it is a completely subjective point of view. “It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity-one might as well warp a carpenter’s rule before using it,” in this, Aristotle is bringing the point home that this form of persuasion is not right in most regards. (Aristotle, 4). He continues by saying this form of argument is immoral and should not be argued in court, but Aristotle does not argue against the fact that it is the most effective form of persuasion.
“Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion,” (Aristotle, 8). Aristotle continues by saying a person should be able to, “(1) reason logically, (2) understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) understand the emotions that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited,” (Aristotle, 9). This describes logos, pathos, and ethos, which are the defining principles of a true rhetorician. With logos you will possess the quality of being clear, be justifiable in your reason, and show your successfulness in producing the substantiated evidence. Pathos, using the emotions of your listeners, varies depending on finding the correct audience to appeal to their sympathies. In this case, language choice and finding a way for the audience to feel what your feel are very effective. Lastly, ethos, will apply to the speakers credibility, standing in the community, or some way for the audience to believe that you have the correct credentials to state the claim you are addressing.
Aristotle divided rhetoric into three categories: political, forensic, and the ceremonial oratory of display. The deliberative, or political side, begs us to make something happen, used to sway an audience to achieve or forfeit an operation directed in the future. Continuing, he proceeds to interpret deliberative rhetoric, illustrating the types of political topics it has. The ones he specifically covers are peace and war, ways and means, importing and exporting, legislation, and national defenses. Followed by the different ethical topics of deliberative rhetoric, which include good birth, wealth, excellence of the body, and possession of many friends. Judicial rhetoric, or forensic speech, argues against or defends a person. This method, mostly used in courtrooms, looks for justice or injustice. In order to obtain this, “there are three things we must ascertain first, the nature and number of the incentives to wrong-doing; second, the state of mind of wrongdoers; third, the kind of persons who are wronged, and their condition,” (Aristotle, 47). Wrong-doing is viewed as intentional abuse of the laws which can include either written law, or unspoken laws. Then, epideictic rhetoric, or ceremonial oratory, tries to change the future. If you are praising, or denouncing, this form of rhetoric can be used for funerals, graduations, or a broad range of topics.
Aristotle also talks about how we must derive our means of persuasion from goodness and utility. This I understand to be the things that are desirable to any given man. I should also note that he believes that your individual qualities are significant. If you are older, people will take you more seriously, same if you are tall as opposed to short. Although this way of thinking is discerning, it should still be noted that these distinctions do have an effect on how the audience sees your character. “There are three things which inspire confidence in the orator’s own character-the three, namely, that induce us to believe a thing apart from any proof of it: good sense, good moral character, and goodwill,” (Aristotle, 75). With these three qualities, the audience will trust the words being spoken, and with that will internally alter their perceptions of the speaker.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s works are not only still viewed today with high regards, but helped shape the way we recognize and carry out arguments today. The fact that his teachings are still widely used shows what an extraordinary impact he had on the world, and how imperative his findings were. In these works he provides an essential, successful, and sought after means of accomplishing persuasion in an argument. Whether it be in a casual sense, business, or court setting, these instructions are crucial to capturing an audience, and getting your point across in a proper fashion.