Chapter 6: Toward a phenomenological rhetoric (from unpublished Ph.D. dissertation) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Aristotle's Rhetoric _ SEP-Entry_new_ (2022)
2022
theory (see van Eemeren 2013 and, more generally, dialogical logic). Some authors have stressed the Rhetoric's affinity to Aristotle's ethical theory (see e.g. Woerner 1990), while others were attracted by Aristotle's rhetorical account of metaphor (see e.g. Ricoeur 1996 and, more generally, metaphor). Most significantly, philosophers and scholars began to turn their attention to the Rhetoric's account of the passions or emotions, which is not only richer than in any other Aristotelian treatise, but was also seen as manifesting an early example of cognitive, judgement-based accounts of emotions (see e.g. Nussbaum 1996, Konstan 2006 and, more generally, §5 of emotion). 1. Aristotle's Works on Rhetoric 2. The Structure of the Rhetoric 3. Rhetoric as a Counterpart to Dialectic 4. The Nature and Purpose of Rhetoric 4.1 The Definition of Rhetoric 4.2 What Rhetoric Is Useful for 4.3 Can Aristotle's Rhetoric Be Misused? 4.4 Is Aristotle's Conception of Rhetoric Normative? 5. The Three Means of Persuasion 5.1 Persuasion Through the Character of the Speaker 5.2 Persuasion Through the Emotions of the Hearer 5.3 Persuasion Through the Argument Itself 5.4 Is There an Inconsistency in Aristotle's Rhetorical Theory? 6. The Enthymeme 6.1 The Concept of Enthymeme 6.2 Formal Requirements 6.3 Enthymemes as Dialectical Arguments 6.4 The Brevity of the Enthymeme 6.5 Different Types of Enthymemes 7. The Topoi 7.1 The (Lacking) Definition of 'Topos' Aristotle's Rhetoric 2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 7.2 The Word 'Topos' and the Technique of Places 7.3 The Ingredients and the Function of Topoi 7.4 Rhetorical Topoi 8. Style: How to Say Things with Words 8.1 The Virtue of Style 8.2 Aristotelian Metaphors Glossary of Selected Terms Bibliography Translations, Editions and Commentaries Collections Monographs and Articles Academic Tools Other Internet Resources Related Entries Supplements: Judgemental and Non-Judgemental Accounts of Aristotelian Emotions The Thesis that Enthymemes are Relaxed Inferences The Brevity of the Enthymeme The Variety of Topoi in the Rhetoric 1. Aristotle's Works on Rhetoric The work that has come down to us as Aristotle's Rhetoric or Art of Rhetoric consists of three books, while the ancient catalogue of the Aristotelian works, reported e.g. by Diogenes Laertius, mentions only two books on rhetoric (probably our Rhetoric I & II), plus two further books on style (perhaps our Rhetoric III?). Whereas most modern authors agree that at least the core of Rhetoric I & II presents a coherent rhetorical theory, the two themes of Rhetoric III (style/diction and the partition of speeches) are not mentioned in the original agenda of Rhetoric I & II. The
Aristotle and the Kinds of Rhetoric
One of the few features of Aristotelian rhetoric that his successors have noticed and developed is his three kinds, deliberative, judicial and epideictic. I want to look at what function the division of rhetoric into three kinds serves in his own argument.
The Nature and Goal of Aristotle's Rhetoric
The Nature and Goal of Aristotle's Rhetoric, 2009
The Purpose of Aristotle's Rhetoric and the different approachescombined within this work. “The Nature and Goals of Rhetoric”, in: G. Anagnostopoulos (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Aristotle, Blackwell, Oxford 2009, 579-595
Redescriptions, 2014
In contrast to some recent articles, which try to bridge the gap between Aristotle's Rhetoric and contemporary concepts of deliberative democracy, it is argued that Aristotle in this work does not plead for a rational and unemotional way of political decision making. On the contrary, his Rhetoric should be read as a manual for strategically oriented actors if not for demagogues. Th e well-known tension between the more ethical and the political parts of Rhetoric can be resolved if a distinction is made between a form of rhetoric, which has its place in an ideal polis, and the kind of rhetoric that is necessary in a corrupt regime. For Aristotle the democratic regime of Athens is such a corrupt regime. In the last part of this paper, it is demonstrated that Aristotle in his Rhetoric highlights the non-cognitive and emotional features of deliberative procedures and thereby corrects one of the most serious shortcomings of the theory of deliberative democracy.
"A set of passages in 1354-1359 of the Rhetoric contain Aristotle’s most explicit discussions of how he conceived the relationships between the different disciplines of rhetoric, politics, dialectic, and ethics. These discussions, while explicit, are brief, and their brevity renders them susceptible to reductive schematization. In this paper, my goal is to elaborate these fertile discussions through three means: close reading of these methodological passages in the Rhetoric; reference to relevant discussions from Aristotle’s other works; and reflection on the dialectical character of Aristotle’s practical philosophy. My main argument is that Aristotle’s practical philosophy, and these passages in particular, offer to and require of his readers a dialectical engagement with the content of the texts (granting that “dialectic” is an equivocal term, I will offer a fuller description in the full paper). I consider four topics more specifically: 1) the relationship between rhetoric and dialectic, as capacities for providing arguments; 2) the ways the discipline of rhetoric shifts into the allied disciplines of politics and ethics; 3) the reasons why rhetoric is always unavoidable in both politics and ethics; 4) how politics and ethics can reciprocally inform rhetoric"
Is Aristotle's Rhetoric political?
This paper examines the political implications of Aristotle's Rhetoric, from an epistemological point of view. In short, I argue that the transition from Plato's concept of rhetoric to Aristotle's art of rhetoric, exceeds a mere change of standpoints as Aristotle provides for an independent and intrinsically political art. In particular, with a threefold line of argument Aristotle reexamines and substitutes the methodological premises of platonic origin for the concepts of “τέχνη”, “λόγος” and “πιθανόν”. This methodological transformation that takes place in the first chapter allows the same pivotal concepts, untouched in name, to rearrange, in an altogether new conceptual system, on basis of which rhetoric can claim the status of an independent art. Consequently, my interpretation underlines the transitive character of the first chapter of Rhetoric that concludes with a novel definition of the task of rhetoric. Since this definition encompasses a tense relation between “λόγος” and “πιθανόν”, it appears paradoxical from the point of view of the platonic tradition. However, from this new vantage point, rhetoric surmounts the deadlock and its epistemological interest is broadened and amplified. Thus, the transition to an art of rhetoric can be seen -as A. Baltas would put it- as a grammatically non linear while epistemologically progressive process. People are capable under the custody of reason to decide on the nature of an issue in hand, even if they do not possess “true” knowledge. In other words, Aristotle's theoretical venture elevates rhetoric as a rational political instrument, accessible to every citizen of the “polis”. Rhetoric appears no longer as a tool or a danger. On the contrary, its independence serves the judgment and confirms the freedom of the public space.
The Three Faces of Greek and Aristotelian Rhetoric
European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2017
The need for the persuasion is often informed by a dire or grave situation which one needs to wriggle out from. Persuasion may also be necessitated by a person’s disposition to a subject, development, or topic in view. The art of persuasion through speech is what scholars, ancient and modern, call rhetoric or oratory. The Greek traditional theorists, who invented rhetoric, divided the art into three types: the judicial (dicanic or forensic), the deliberative (symbouleutic) and the demonstrative (epideictic). Broadly, Greek rhetoric also has a tripartite part: invention, arrangement and style. Similarly, by Aristotelian theory, rhetoric is the art of persuasion which functions by three means: by appeal to people’s reason (logos); by the appeal to their emotions (pathos) and by the appeal of the speaker’s personality or character (ethos). What exactly did the Greeks and, indeed, Aristotle mean by these terms and their functions? This paper, while highlighting the general conception of the Greek rhetoric and its three-way nature, surveys the Aristotelian tripartite division and functionality of rhetoric through a simple method of content analysis of selected ancient and modern texts. It submits that a rhetor (rhetorician/orator) is not firm in his trade if he does not artfully possess and execute the Aristotelian three modes of persuasion in contexts of necessity or grave situations. Keywords: Greek rhetoric, oratory, Aristotle, ethos, pathos, logs.
Reviewing Rhetoric in the Classical Period--Plato and Aristotle
2015
Plato and Aristotle are key figures in the study of rhetoric. Classical period had been known as the era where rhetoric emerged as the influential language existence. Experts on rhetoric had discussed deeply about the history of rhetoric from the classical period up to the renaissance. In this writing, the focus of the discussion is in the classical period. The reviews being discussed in this writing are mainly derived from ongoing discussion on rhetoric.