| Title | : | The Art of Rhetoric |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0140445102 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780140445107 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 292 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 323 |
The Art of Rhetoric Reviews
-
Not Aristotle's clearest or best organized work, but still part of the core curriculum of a liberal education.
Why read Aristotle today? Because he is one of the greatest minds in Western history, and such a person's well-considered thoughts are inherently worth reading, if anything is.
In addition, this book was deliberately aimed at those seeking to play an active role in a democratic society, to help them fulfill their function as citizens of a free society. We in the West imagine ourselves (mostly) to be members of a free society, and in fact take this for granted. But we tend not to participate in the political functioning of our society, and in general are not encouraged to do so. Most particularly, we are not educated to do so.
In the ancient world the idea of the liberal education was formed: an education fitting for a free man, that is, one who was a participating citizen of a democratic state. In ancient Greece the citizens themselves formed the government of their city-states, and every citizen might expect to hold a government post at one or more times in his life. What knowledge did such a man need to fulfill his role in the best way? Which faculties should he cultivate and which suppress?
Liberal education came to be envisaged as training in the seven "liberal arts": logic, grammar, rhetoric, mathematics, geometry, music, and astronomy. By medieval times these were split into two groups: a higher trivium consisting of the first 3, and a lower quadrivium consisting of the latter 4. As Sister Miriam Joseph explains in her excellent book
The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric, these arts remain as relevant today as they ever were. For the art called logic is simply the art of how to think accurately about reality; the art of grammar is the art of expressing one's thoughts accurately in symbolic form, such as words; and the art of rhetoric is the art of persuading others of the validity of one's thoughts. Aristotle's book is probably still the most important text on this third art of the trivium.
In broad strokes, Aristotle analyzes rhetoric and finds that it has 3 main applications, namely judicial, or talking about past events; deliberative, or talking about future courses of action; and so-called epideictic, or talking about the present, which Aristotle says is mostly connected with formally praising and blaming people. Facing one of these three tasks, the speaker or rhetor has 3 basic strategies of persuasion: logical argument, or persuasion via facts and logic; emotional argument, or finding language to arouse certain feelings in the audience; and the so-called moral argument, which consists in winning the audience's trust and good will through one's own character and demeanor. Interestingly, Aristotle regards this last "argument" as the most persuasive element in a speech. In terms of persuasion, how we say things is more important than what we say.
There are further detailed breakdowns of how to achieve these various aims, illustrated in many cases with examples.
The translator, George A. Kennedy, provides a summary of the main points of each chapter, along with interesting historical material and some notes about how Aristotle fits in with the flow of ancient teaching on rhetoric generally (for it was a subject keenly studied in both Greece and Rome). For my taste there is perhaps more attention drawn than necessary to academic issues like the question of whether certain sections were later additions and other minutiae of translation. In many cases he puts the original Greek term in brackets by the English word, which again is aimed at an academic reader. In general though I found the translator's comments useful and illuminating.
Like all of Aristotle's surviving works, this is a technical manual (all of his publications for the general reader have been lost), and so you need some determination to get through it. But our society is becoming ever less free, and it's not going to become more free unless each of us takes responsibility for training ourselves to be free. It won't happen by itself; and our society--governments, schools, institutions--isn't doing it.
A free society settles its differences through dialogue, not violence or fraud. This book is still a major text on how to do that. As such, it's well worth our time and attention all these centuries after it was first written. -
Aristotle defines. Unmercifully. And The Art of Rhetoric is no exception. Aristotle disdained the sophist tradition of ancient Greece as much as Plato, but he also understood that rhetoric was a popular study of the day and it became another discipline he sought to master. With a scientific eye and a mind toward philosophical value, Aristotle studied rhetoric as “the power to observe the persuasiveness of which any particular matter admits” (pg. 74; Ch. 1.2). Rhetoric, when used appropriately, becomes a tool of the dialectic instead of one that subverts.
So begins the dissection of speech. There are three genres of rhetoric: deliberative, forensic and epideictic (display). But regardless for what purpose the rhetorician speaks, there are three components to each speech: ethos (the ethics of the speaker), pathos (the emotions of the audience) and logos (the logic of the words).
What follows is a practical handbook for the orator. Part psychology, part theory part logic, The Art of Rhetoric lists considerations for the public speaker. The age of the audience, the nature of a government’s citizenry and a thorough examination of the motives for various emotions fill Book II. In many ways, Book II resembles the Nicomachean Ethics in its utilitarian analysis of what drives human beings.
However, Book III resembles Poetics in its methodical analysis of persuasive writing. Aristotle covers the value and pitfalls of metaphor, similes and other devices. He examines what makes “frigid” language and rhythmic speech. As with Book II, it is chocked full of examples of the good and bad.
To fully appreciate The Art of Rhetoric, one must have a strong familiarity with its context. Which, quite honestly, I don’t. Undoubtedly, the competing schools of rhetoric defined Athenian education and Aristotle was competing against Isocrates for students. Though most likely one of the first and most comprehensive collection of thoughts on the components of rhetoric, for the modern reader the ideas are at times dated and over generalized. The examples that Aristotle serves as benchmarks for various enthymemes (truncated syllogisms relying on commonly understood principles) are unknown to modern audiences. Likewise, his rudimentary psychological analysis of his audience is overbroad (though still impressive given his pioneering of this discipline at the time).
For historical importance, this is most likely a five star work. But we have the advantage of not living in ancient Greece. In terms of enjoyment, and actual value for the modern reader, these ideas regarding communication and public speaking have been conveyed more clearly and effectively by other writers.
__________________________________________________________
One interesting comparison of East/West thought can be seen by these two passages. First, Aristotle:Surely everyone would agree that one or more of these is happiness. If, then happiness is some such thing, its elements must be: Gentle birth, a wide circle of friends, a virtuous circle of friends, wealth, creditable offspring, extensive offspring and a comfortable old age; also the physical virtues (e.g. health, beauty, strength, size and competitive prowess), reputation, status, good luck and virtue…(pg. 87, Ch. 1.5, circa 4th century B.C. emphasis added)
Compared to Lie Yukou, circa 5th century B.C, whose sayings were compiled in the Lieh Tzu (Liezi) in the 3rd or 4th century A.D:There are four things," states a Taoist work of this age (the Lieh Tzu: third century A.D.), "that do not allow people to have peace. The first is long life, the second is reputation, the third is rank, and the fourth is riches. Those who have these things fear ghosts, fear men, fear power, and fear punishment. They are called fugitives…(Oriental Mythology; Campbell, Joseph pg. 435)
-
I'm sure it's excellent, necessary, brilliantly designed, etc. But so is a sewer system, and you don't want to spend too much time there either.
-
In his book, Aristotle teaches the reader the art of persuasion, otherwise known as rhetoric. He divides arguments – means of persuasion available to the speaker – into two kinds: non-artistic and artistic.
The non-artistic kind are those that do not require from the speaker to be a skillful rhetorician. He just has to use them. Such non-artistic proofs are five, according to the author: laws, witnesses, contracts, oaths, and torture. He believed that lawyers who plead cases in court use them the most, but, if applied to modern politics, they can be used by representatives to persuade citizens to accept a new tax, for instance. I found his views on torture interesting. He noted that one can be tempted to use it because if it is in one's favor, one can exaggerate its importance by asserting that it is the only true kind of proof, and if it is in favor of the other side, he can dismiss it by pointing out that tortured people are likely to give false testimonies. Progressively for Ancient Greece, where torture was lawfully used, Aristotle underscored that torture cannot be relied on as proof.
The artistic kind of arguments are those that require rhetorical skills to be used. They are logos, or rational appeal, pathos, or emotional appeal, and ethos, or ethical appeal.
When using logos, the speaker appeals to the understanding of the audience – he argues for his point. To argue, one has either to draw conclusions from affirmative or negative statements or to make generalizations based on observations. In other words, one has to reason either inductively or deductively. An instance of inductive reasoning is "Every grape that I ate was sweet, so all grapes are probably sweet." An instance of deductive reasoning is the well-known "All men are mortal, and all Greeks are men, so all Greeks are mortal." In logic, this deductive way of thinking is known as syllogism, a term that Aristotle used. It is important to remember that only a conclusion that is logical can be called a syllogism. Woody Allen's famous conclusion, "All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates," is definitely not a syllogism.
In rhetoric, a syllogism is called the enthymeme. As Aristotle writes, "The enthymeme must consist of few propositions, fewer often than those which make up a normal syllogism." This is why the enthymeme is now considered a shortened syllogism, an argument that includes the conclusion and one of the premises, with the other premise only implied. For instance, turned into an enthymeme, the syllogism above would sound like this: "Since all Greeks are men, they are all mortal." The conclusion – all Greeks are mortal – is included and so is one of the premises – all Greeks are men. The implied premise is that all men are mortal. The enthymeme helps the orator because it excludes the parts of the argument that the auidence would be impatient to listen to or unable to follow.
Aristotle wanted rhetoric to focus only on rational appeals, but he was realistic enough to understand that people have free will and are swayed by passions and emotions. He accepted that if rhetoric was indeed the art of discovering all available ways to persuade, it had to include an inquiry into the means of touching people's emotions. This is why he devoted the second part of his work to analyzing human emotions, which the speaker has to know and learn how to provoke or restrain. For instance, he discussed how the orator can prevent the members of his audience from feeling pity by provoking their indignation and envy. He explained that these two emotions were the opposite of pity, so the speaker had to appeal to them: "if the envious man is pained at another's possession or acquisition of good fortune, he is bound to rejoice at the destruction or non-acquisition of the same."
The third way to persuade, as defined by the author, is ethos. It relies on the character of the speaker, especially on the way he presents his character in his speech. To appeal to the audience, he brings himself in their favor by making an impression that he is a man of intelligence, benevolence, and integrity. Aristotle believed that ethos could be the most effective of the three kinds of artistic ways of persuasion because even if the orator can convince the people with logic and touch their emotions, his efforts will not be successful if the audience does not trust him. However, he also wrote that which of the three appeals is most suitable depends on what we are arguing for, on the circumstances, and on the kind of audience that we are addressing.
THE "ART" OF RHETORIC is thought-provoking and well-written. Translated by John Henry Freese, Aristotle's work is not difficult to understand. This book would be of interest to anyone who wants to know about rhetoric and to become more aware of the ways in which others can influence our views and choices with their words. -
Aristoteles'in Platon'un "Gorgias"da bahsettiği Retorik kavramını bir üst seviyeye taşıdığı eseri "The Art of Rhetoric / Retorik", insani tutumlara dair mükemmele yakın tanımlamarıyla adeta bir hayat sözlüğü niteliğinde. Kıskançlık, kibir, gurur, hırs, yaşlılık, gençlik gibi bir sürü kavramın açıklamalarını okuma ��ansı bulduğumuz eserde özellikle ilk iki kitabı okurken ünlü filozofun zekasına ve gözlemlerine hayran kalıyorsunuz. Öte yandan, eğretileme ve konuşma tekniklerinden bahsettiği daha çok "Poetika"yla bir bütünlük taşıyan üçüncü kitabın ise ilk ikisi kadar etkili ve etkileyici olduğunu söyleyemeyeceğim. Buna rağmen Aristoteles'in en anlaşılır ve en iyi eserlerinden biri olan"Retorik"in kesinlikle okunması gereken felsefe kitaplarından biri olduğuna kuşku yok.
28.04.2015
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo... -
Right off the bat, Im not going to say I understood it all. I felt like a fish out of water for a bit with Aristotles discussions on enthymemes and syllogism and so on (mostly because my previous experience with Classical Philosophy centred on choice passages relating to social history rather than on philosophy for philosophies sake). I had read parts of his discussions on emotions for a social history class, but the bulk of the book was new for me.
I went into it looking for a better understanding of what Rhetoric is and the best ways to practice it. Ultimately, I believe I got that. Aristotle is unbelievably insightful and I really have the desire to read more of his works to get a better picture of his skills of observation and thought. -
این کتاب در اواسط قرن چهارم توسط ارسطو نوشته می شود. از نقاط قوت کتاب می توان به بررسی و تحقیق آن حتی در عصر حاضر اشاره کرد. این کتاب در بردارنده ی مطالبی راجع به فلسفه، حکمت، تاریخ، ادبیات و... است که بیانگر نگاه جامع و دقیق ارسطو نسبت به مسائل می باشد.از نگاه ارسطو،"خطابه" ازجمله فنونی است که می توان از آن در دو جهت متضاد خیر و شر استفاده کرد. ارسطو از ایسوکراتس یکی از معروفترین معلمان خطابه زیاد یاد می کند. ارسطو به یقین گفته های و�� را خوانده بود؛ اما رابطه بین این دو چندان رابطه ی دوستانه ای نبوده به گونه ای که فن خطابه بعد از آن ها به دو نوع: 1.ارسطویی که مبتنی بر عقل و منطق است و 2. روش ایسوکراتسی که مبتنی بر زیبایی سبک و ساختار ادبی است، تقسیم می گردد.
از دید ارسطوه، خطابه آمیزهای است از عناصر جدلی و سیاسی و اخلاقی. روشی است مانند جدل که ضرورتاً هیچ موضوعی از آن خود ندارد؛ ولی تا اندازهای فنی عملی است مشتق از اخلاق و سیاست. -
I think I finally figured out Aristotle! Before I read this, I didn't really connect with his thinking, but now I think I do.
The Art of Rhetoric is an astoundingly comprehensive guide to the complex and delicate skill of oration. It moves through three parts: firstly, Demonstration, secondly: Emotion and Character and thirdly: Universal Aspects, each one covering a different part of the skill.
Aristotle leaves no stone unturned in his search for what makes great oration great. As a result, there are so many examples in this book that by the end of it, it's hard not to want to write a speech. Aristotle provides enough material to write a thousand speeches.
It's important to note however, that this book is not light reading. In fact, it doesn't even really ask to be read at all. Aristotle is famously dry, but Rhetoric really takes the biscuit on dryness. There are many arid deserts, both on, and indeed beyond, earth that are less dry than this book. What it really demands is not reading - but study.
Going through this book cover to cover was enlightening in many ways, and definitely gave me a strong appreciation for Aristotle's thinking, but it never seemed like this was the way it was meant to be read. Rhetoric is more of a handbook (or maybe even a textbook) for orators. -
You may never have read anything by Aristotle; but if you've ever taken a college writing course, you've had him as your teacher. The Art of Rhetoric did so much to define how subsequent generations, and civilizations, regarded the task of crafting persuasive language that it can truly be regarded as a founding text. Methodically, Aristotle sets forth his sense of how the writer's handling of character and emotion contributes to success in rhetorical terms. His insights regarding style and composition, written for a Greek audience of the 4th century B.C., are surprisingly relevant for people writing in English in the 21st century A.D. Readers sometimes find Aristotle's list-heavy style dry; unlike Plato, he does not present philosophical ideas in the form of a dialogue between characters. But his insights on rhetoric still do much to shape the way in which composition courses are taught at universities and colleges worldwide.
-
This was about as exciting as reading through a dictionary. But there might be some truth to this, because I think Rhetoric would make a great handbook or guide to someone interested in countering their opponents’ arguments with rhetoric. I am imagining something like a dictionary, with the opponent’s argument stated in bold, and Aristotle’s advice on how to respond stated under that entry. As an exercise in reading from cover to cover, however, this book is frustrating, though occasionally insightful. So I will present a review that is as fragmented and unreadable as Rhetoric itself, but hopefully also a little insightful.
For myself, I believe in Socrates’ privileging of philosophy over rhetoric in the Phaedrus. So I was probably not the target audience for this book. But I can still note that the book is weakened by the pointless digressions into defining qualities like the good, etc. which Aristotle already defines in much better ways in Ethics and Politics. This really takes away from the quality of this book.
But even Aristotle recognises that rhetoric can be wrongful and misleading at times. He chooses to neutrally blame this on the “quality” of the listeners, thus saving the rhetorician from all blame.
This book is interesting from a legal perspective, because Aristotle seems to believe in some form of legal formalism —
Now, it is of great moment that well-drawn laws should themselves define all the points they possibly can and leave as few as may be to the decision of the judges
But later he upholds a Natural Law Theory perspective (after all, Classical Natural Law Theory was put forward by Aquinas who studied Aristotle in depth)—
Universal law is the law of nature. For there really is, as everyone to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is common to all, even to those who have no association or covenant with each other.
In fact, I can see much of his language, like the definitions of “voluntariness” and “knowledge”, reflected in the Indian Penal Code. This is likely, considering that Macaulay who drafted the Code was a very well-read individual with knowledge of the ancient Greeks.
Aristotle does, however, conflict with Macaulay by making adultery a “private” wrong (a wrong against some definite person — obviously the husband as per Aristotle). Not sure if I’m reading him correctly, but a private wrong is also not a crime, as crimes must be public wrongs. It is unlikely that Aristotle decriminalised adultery, but his passage does read that way if we take into account the private vs public wrongs aspect of criminal theory.
Another interesting aspect is the equation of inductive reasoning with examples, and of deductive reasoning with enthymemes (a word I had to look up within the first 3 pages of this book).
Aristotle and the pursuit of happiness —
It may be said that every individual man and all men in common aim at a certain end which determines what they choose and what they avoid. This end, to sum it up briefly, is happiness and its constituents.
In another paragraph, while discussing the excellences of humans, Aristotle places “self-command” as one of the excellences that women can possess. This seems to conflict with his popular image as a traditionalist-misogynist, at least in comparison to Plato, who was more progressive on the question of gender equality.
However, in many of his sentences, I can’t help but feel like he is just plain wrong. For example, he writes —
All such good things as excite envy are, as a class, the outcome of good luck.
This assumes that merited things cannot excite envy in others. I think they can. If someone works harder than us and becomes more successful, we can still feel envious towards them (though if only through our own ignorance). Later, he writes —
That which is praised is good, since no one praises what is not good.
This is laughably wrong and goes against the entire philosophical objective of finding the unpopular moral good and reeducating citizens of said good. Yet again, he writes —
Thus, if the tallest man is taller than the tallest women, then men in general are taller than women.
Aristotle thinks that this is a deduction. I fail to see how this can be valid. The difference in height of the extremes cannot lead to a “general” deduction for the mean.
Excellence is greater than non-excellence, badness than non-badness; for excellence, goodness and badness are ends, which the mere absence of them cannot be.
Interesting perspective, but I don’t understand how badness can ever be better than non-badness — and how is non-badness different from good? If non-badness connotes neutrality, neutrality is still better than badness, whether or not it is an “end” in itself (whatever that means).
Aristotle’s definition of pleasure contradicts the first noble truth, something that I also noted in his De Anima—
We may lay it down that pleasure is a movement, a movement by which the soul as a whole is consciously brought into its normal state of being; and that pain is the opposite.
In this paragraph, he makes “pleasure” the default mode of human experience. The Buddha instead makes suffering the default position. Could this be like the glass half-full or half-empty problem? I don’t think so, because the Buddha takes a more nuanced view of suffering as feeling lack, desire, incompleteness, etc. -
The first book of Aristotle’s highly taxonomical Rhetoric opens with a parsing of dialectic and rhetoric. He sets up the latter as an art of persuasion related to but nevertheless distinguishable from the former. After exploring the usefulness of syllogisms and enthymemes for both arts, Aristotle sets out his three basic categories of rhetorical discourse: deliberative, judicial (or forensic), and epideictic. He spends the rest of the first book exploring topics (related to the Greek topos, for place) useful for finding and constructing arguments in each of the three categories. The second book is generally focused on pathos, ethos, and logos, with Aristotle cataloging the various ways rhetors can make use of emotion, character, and reason as means of persuasion. He works through emotions first, explaining how various emotions can be useful to rhetors as well as characterizing the states of minds of those feeling particular emotions. He then discusses ethos, exploring the character of various audiences (young versus old, for instance) and how a speaker might thus adapt a speech based on a particular audience’s character. Lastly, he delineates varieties of logical argument: examples, maxims, enthymemes, and topoi. The final book deals with lexis, somewhat synonymous with “style,” and taxis, which approximates “arrangement.” Aristotle thus considers how various stylistic strategies such as energeia (which George Kennedy translates as “bringing-before-the-eyes”) and metaphor can be used to enhance a discourse’s persuasiveness depending on its classification, then breaks down the parts of arguments: the prooemion, the narration, the proof, the interrogation of the opposition, and the epilogue.
Kennedy's edition also includes a translation of Gorgias' "Encomium of Helen." In this encomium, Gorgias sets out to “refute those who rebuke Helen … whose ill-omened name has become a memorial of disasters. I wish, by giving logic to language, to free the accused of blame and to show that her critics are lying and to demonstrate the truth and to put an end to ignorance” (2). After narrating Helen’s history and parentage, Gorgias argues that “either by fate’s will and gods’ wishes and necessity’s decrees she did what she did or by force reduced or by words seduced or by love induced” (6). He claims that Helen is blameless if fate or force were to blame, as “by nature the stronger force is not prevented by the weaker” and Helen, the “weaker” in this case, cannot be blamed for fate or force’s irresistibility. “But if speech (logos) persuaded her,” Gorgias argues, it is still not difficult to exonerate Helen. For speech, he claims, “is a powerful lord that with the smallest and most invisible body accomplishes most godlike works” (8). Because “it is easy neither to remember the past nor to consider the present nor to predict the future … on most subjects most people take opinion as counselor to the soul” (11). “What is there,” then, to prevent young Helen from being “carried off by speech just as if constrained by force? Her mind was swept away by persuasion” (12). Speech is as strong as necessity, and “[t]he power of speech has the same effect on the condition of the soul as the application of drugs to the state of bodies”: “some instill courage, some drug and bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion” (14). After setting up love as a similarly irresistible force, Gorgias concludes, “By speech I have removed disgrace from a woman.... I wished to write a speech that would be Helen’s encomion and my own paignion”--an amusement or plaything (20). -
Ari Çokona çevirisinden okunması tavsiye olunur...
-
[Warning: Translation disaster]
Çeviri (Mehmet Dogan, YKY) çok fena. Eyvah eyvah. Zaten ingiliççeden, neden bilmiyorum. Hayir yani neden bu kadar kötü bi çeviriyle Aristo okunmak zorunda kalinmis ki? Bu yüzden 1. Yoksa ne haddime canim Üstâd Aristû'ya bu puani vermek.
Bunun disinda, bilhassa ikinci bölüm çok önemli. Çok detayli bir duygular epistemolojisi. De Anima ve etik kitaplarindaki duygular ve hisler nazariyelerine paralel okumalar yapilabilir. Hatta daha öteye geçilerek Platon'la, Cicero ve Seneca'yla, Descartes'in ve Spinoza'nin hisler, duygular ve tutkular üzerine teorileriyle karsilastirmali okumalar yapilabilir. -
Don't be put off by the rating. Worth a read.
-
On public speaking in politics, law, eulogies. Aristotle suggests persuasiveness comes from arguments, emotions, credibility, and from style.
-
The only rhetoric textbook a classical school should ever need (I exaggerate slightly... but not much). Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric has everything. And it's all brilliant. I've been using this (Book I particularly) as my 11th grade writing curriculum this year, and it's amazing. This translation (Waterfield) in particular is much easier for my students to grasp than other translations out there, and it doesn't take much to turn his advice here into a series of really practical writing assignments.
Thousands of years after its publication, it still may be the best work on rhetoric out there. I learned a lot reading through this and will be heavily using this moving forward whenever I teach high school Rhetoric. A++ work.
Rating: 4.5-5 Stars (Extremely Good). -
I do not think that I understood this text particularly well. I am writing this review so that I can refer to it at later after I have read either more works by Aristotle or more commentaries on him. Rather than read this review, I suggest other GR members consult the very solid English language article on Aristotle's Rhetoric which can be found on the Wikipedia web site. (The French Wikipedia article only increased my confusion.)
Rhetoric in the view of Aristotle is the set of best practices that one should learn in order to be successful at persuading an audience that will either read or listen to your argument. It is not a science. The rhetorician should simply use the logic and techniques that work best.
In its simplest form, Aristotle's thesis is that persuasion is composed of three components:
-1- solid logic (logos) - the effective use of the dialectic and the syllogism. In particular, Aristotle places emphasis on the enthymeme which is a syllogism lacks a premise but which the listener will provide;
-2- knowing the audience (pathos) - the rhetorician must understand human psychology and tailor his or her argument to the specific audience. There must be a forceful appeal to the emotions of the listener;
-3- good style (ethos) - well chosen vocabulary, effective use of metaphors, appropriate sentence structure.
I had the impression that Aristotle believed that pathos was the most important; in other words, he seemed to feel that the rhetorician was likely to win if he or she understood the audience and made the right appeal to its emotions.
My translator Jules Barthélémy Saint-Hilaire writing in the 1860's under the regime of Napoléon III argued that rhetoric only works in a democratic society such as senatorial Rome or fifth-century Athens. In his view, rhetoric in his age was flourishing only in England.
Saint-Hilaire would likely also agree with the point made by Gustave LeBon ("The Psychology of Crowds") in the 20 th century that demagogic oratory does not rely on rhetoric but is based rather on telling the "big lie." -
Soovitan kõigile. Kasulikku ja head leiab siit iga eriala inimene.
-
The particulars that those particular particulars particulate is, in particular, particularly particular.
-
i could’ve written this better than he did. very tedious but some good points that almost made reading it worth it.
-
No sé cómo puntuar este libro. Creo que es una obra que hace falta leer más de una vez o, por lo menos, estar más experimentado en este tipo de lecturas. Es interesante leer algo tan primitivo porque cada frase importa. Y eso es lo que lo hace complejo. Después de 346 páginas de Aristóteles tengo la sensación de no haber aprendido mucho y de tener muchas dudas. Tal vez en unos meses volveré a él y podré puntuarle. De momento me quedo con sus referencias a la alta literatura de la época entremezclado con los chascarrillos populares de su pueblo.
Edit unos meses después
---------------------------------
Después de haber interiorizado un poco mejor las ideas del libro, me atrevo a mojarme las manos. Quizá una de las enseñanzas que más me gustaron es que Aristóteles muestra claramente que la Filosofía es un conocimiento segundo en lugar de uno primero. Todo el libro son referencias y citas a juicios y argumentaciones públicas de su época que le sirvieron para captar una idea de retórica y que luego elevó para hacer una teoría general de la misma. En ese sentido, se aprecia un análisis materialista en su texto.
La retórica es el arte de persuadir con el habla, del convencimiento de los otros teniendo en cuenta quién es el receptor y quién el emisor. Si la dialéctica se centra en llegar a conclusiones verdaderas a partir de premisas verdaderas, la retórica llega a conclusiones probablemente verdaderas a partir de premisas coherentes. Aristóteles entiende que un discurso literario produce más efecto por su expresión que por su contenido. En esta línea, defiende un tono natural en el discurso acorde al emisor, sin florituras innecesarias "que hagan sentir al público la misma sensación que cuando beben un vino mezclado."
En el camino explica también cómo hacer una buena argumentación, cómo refutar, cómo criticar, cómo generalizar y cómo particularizar. El uso de la metáfora, de la antítesis y del ejemplo. De este último dice que "el ejemplo ha de usarse para concluir, porque si se usan primero parecería que la argumentación es una inducción, y la inducción, salvo pocas excepciones, no es adecuada para la retórica. En cambio, si se utilizan después, sirven como testimonios, y el testigo es siempre digno de crédito."
Finalmente, reduce los tres tipos de discursos en relación con los tres tiempos verbales:
- Judicial/forense: al pasado, porque el juez habla sobre lo ocurrido.
- Deliberativo: al futuro, porque se delibera acerca de lo que va a suceder.
- Exhibición: al presente, porque se enseña lo que se puede ver, no lo que ya ocurrió ni lo que ocurrirá.
Seguiré con sus libros de política y quizá estaría bien leer Tópicos y Poética, ya que los cita varias veces en este libro. -
I need an Idiot's Guide type book to help me with this one because this is just not sinking in. Perhaps I need to reread it. ehh. I'm not really a fan of rhetoric to begin with but this is certainly the book for orators, politicians, and lawyers to be. Proof, proof, proof, make sure you can back up what you say, but when you don't have proof, at least say it with style and panache, that's half the battle. An interesting read during election season.
One of the most interesting moments in this book is when Aristotle defines happiness:
"If, then, happiness is some such thing, its elements must be: Gentle birth, a wide circle of friends, a virtuous circle of friends, wealth, creditable offspring, extensive offspring and a comfortable old age; also the physical virtues (e.g. health, beauty, strength, size and competitive prowess), reputation, status, good luck and virtue (or also its elements, prudence, courage, justice and moderation)." -
This book is obviously a classic to the field of rhetoric. It also contains what is essentially the first treatise on human psychology, in addition to systematically analyzing the art of persuasion.
I have never read any other editions of this book, but I would recommend this edition to everyone who wants to read it. George Kennedy's translation and his commentary are incredibly helpful, even amusing at times. His sheer knowledge of Aristotle and this work (he must have spent decades on it) is staggering. Plus, the fact that it's the Oxford University Press gives it some--to use Aristotle's vocabulary--ethos. -
The Art of Rhetoric is a study of argumentative persuasion using two modes- example or enthymeme to promote truth and justice. Divided in three parts it is taking a look into into the speaker, emotions, the *logos* and style of the speech.
Throughout the book I couldn’t stop thinking of how much of Aristotle is really left in those words; and many examples got me lost simply because having no context in my mind. However, I suggest this book for those who are concerned about effective communication of ideas through language. -
There is so much depth in here that is interesting and helpful, but unlike a lot of his work this one was written like a textbook.
A book that begins so much of our modern logical studies having three stars might be slightly offensive but the reading itself is just not that interesting which the translator succinctly warns the reader before delving into this work.
However, I was still able to take a lot of insight into political argumentation and determinative writing that i would not have if I had not put in the work to get through this text. -
Surprisingly, most of my classical studies did not involve so much Aristotle, so this is my first full encounter with his primary text. He definitely has a lot to say about the way others should say things. This edition's editor makes constant reference to places when Aristotle dropped the ball, by the time I got to Style, I could see that students at the Lyceum were lucky enough to have an engaging instructor who wanted them to try innovative ways of speaking.
-
I have now been enlightened.
Definitely not the most “fun” read, but the content was overall pretty good, and it did offer some useful methods for arguing your case and refuting your opponent’s. It did induce some severe brain pain and did bore me out of my wig at times, but logic is such an important subject that I’m just going to go ahead and give this one four stars. 🤷♀️ -
This is undoubtedly a classic for good reason. But I found it very boring as it reads like a textbook really. I guess I expected something a bit more hands on/practical, but got a book filled with definitions, more definitions, and the exploration of said definitions..
