| Title | : | The Rhetoric \u0026 The Poetics of Aristotle |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0075546027 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780075546023 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 336 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1954 |
The Rhetoric \u0026 The Poetics of Aristotle Reviews
-
CORPUS ARISTOTELICUS Rhetoric and Poetics
By ARISTOTLE
This treatise dates from the 4th century BC.
The basics of Aristotle’s system of Rhetoric had "After that served as a touchstone" influencing this art from ancient through modern times.
The edition translated by W. Rhys Roberts is bright and pleasant to read.
Aristotle was lucky to have lived at a time when there was no censure or politically correct language to be used. He writes like he would have spoken, an everyday style.
Rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectic. Both are considered within the general knowledge of all persons and belong to no specific science.
The modes of persuasion are the only true constituents of the art; everything else is merely accessory.
If the general language used for this study is simple, there are however a few rare words to assimilate.
Syllogism, enthymeme, encomium, and others.
Persuasion is a sort of demonstration. An orator's demonstration is an enthymeme.
The enthymeme is a sort of syllogism, and the consideration of arguments of all kinds is the business of dialectic or one of its branches.
Everybody is using the art of persuasion on a day to day life, but generally speaking, but all
Depends on who are the listeners to speeches.
A politician will try to persuade that his ideas will bring peace and prosperity to the country.
A lawyer will try to persuade a law court that his client is telling the truth and obtain a favourable judgment.
A ceremonial speaker could be the organizer of Olympic Games and hopes to raise enthusiasm for the winners of the competition.
A remarkable absence in this treatise is Religion.
Aristotle was fortunate to live at a time when no religion was known, and no preachers of any kind were trying to persuade, convince or scare a population to believe in a God or the devil.
Ancient Greeks had their Theogony as immortalized by Hesiod. It seems that no one tried to promote or repeal this tradition at that time.
For me, an additional pleasure of reading Aristotle is the historical background, the immediate contemporary, or the ancient or mythology.
Let me give you some quotes:
On pleading in the case of ‘Orestes of Theodectes’:
“It is right that she who slays her lord should die.
It is right, too, that the son should avenge his father. Very good; these two things are what Orestes has done.
Still, perhaps the two things, once they are put together, do not form a right act. The fallacy might also be said to be due to omission since the speaker fails to say by whose hand a husband slayer should die."
"The question whether it is unjust for a city to enslave its innocent neighbours often does not trouble them at all."
"Thus they praise Achilles because he championed his fallen friend Patroclus, though he knew that this meant death and that otherwise he need not die: yet while to die thus was the nobler thing for him to do, the expedient thing was to live on."
Aristotle’s definition of happiness:
��Good birth, plenty of friends, good friends, wealth, plenty of children, a happy old age, also such bodily excellences as health, beauty, strength, large stature, athletic powers, together with fame, honour, good luck and virtue.
Wealth is made of plenty coined money, the ownership of numerous, large, and beautiful estates, livestock and slaves.
Communities, as well as individuals, should lack none of these perfections, in their women as well as in their men.
Where, as among the Lacedaemonians, the state of their women is bad, almost half of human life is spoiled.
Friendship: a friendly feeling towards anyone as wishing for him or her, what you believe to be good things, not for your own sake but his, and being inclined, so far as you can, to bring these things about. A friend is a sort of person who shares your pleasure in what is good and your pain in what is unpleasant.
Kindness may be defined as helpfulness towards someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped.
So reading this work has for me different pleasures and advantages:
I am not a politician, so I will not make use of persuasion in public affairs.
I am not a lawyer so that I will make no use of persuasion at law court.
I am not a ceremonial speaker, nor a preacher.
The significant advantage of my new knowledge of Aristotle's Art of Persuasion will be in argumentations with my wife.
I will now be highly qualified to have the last word. -
As I've mentioned before in other reviews, I read this more from a desire to study Aristotle thoroughly and less from an active interest in the subject matter. I have a tendency to want to be as well versed in an important thinker as I can be. That means I will expend some effort in research that might not seem altogether practical from the perspective of the casual observer.
The first work on Poetics is not easily grouped with Aristotle's other works. It is apparently one of the earliest works dealing with poetry and tragedy from a critical perspective. That alone does make the work important. It also functions as a catalog of non-extant works. Sadly, many of the works that Aristotle refers to, no longer exist. Aristotle extrapolates certain rules from his fairly extensive knowledge of poetry. How practical his rules are, I can't comment on. I suppose I might revisit this work when I dedicate more time to studying Greek epic and tragedy.
The second work on Rhetoric can be easily grouped with Aristotle's works on ethics and politics on one side, and with his logical works on the other side. One could see this work as a bridge between his ethical/political thought and his theories on logic. It is sort of a practical application of the purely theoretical ideas presented in those works. Aristotle's theories do lend themselves to a legal setting, so this seems to be an advancement from the early rhetoric of the sophists and from the later purely political rhetoric of people like Isocrates and Demosthenes. Cicero was apparently well acquainted with Aristotle's thoughts on Rhetoric. It probably would have been better to read this before reading Cicero, but it didn't happen that way.
The book was worth reading. I found the commentary helpful, but took issue with some of the less relevant asides that the commentator indulged in. I give the work itself around 3-and-a-half to 4 stars. I'm not sure it's essential Aristotle, but due to the second work's relationship to his logical works and political/ethical works, it's important. -
Complex? Yes. Insightful? Absolutely. This is not an easy read, but once you get to the end, you will never regret that you chose to read this book. If you are interested in philosophical aspect of human life then this is the perfect book for you. It unravels Aristotle's early life in Plato's Academy and how he began his first recordings of poetry and its influence upon humans. Aristotle introduced superb theory that by reading someone's fragments of poetry, you can create a phycological profile and understand the person's trail of thought. Did you know that once Aristotle taught Alexander the Great? Aristotle made his student analyze poetry and come up with logical explanation as to why it was written, to study every word of it, in order to understand human structure of mind which helped the ruler to develop great wits and intelligence. The difference between the poet and the writer is widely argued. Aristotle's belief is that poetics is a gift where as writing skills can be developed over time. He also impersonated poetry as an individual feeling, resembling love or a strong passion for something, which can also take over human mind. Interesting thing mentioned was the difference between plot and a story. A plot is the poet's signature, his creation. And according to Aristotle, once there is "beginning, a middle, and an end" p.44 the story is birthed.My opinion of the book? I am always fascinated by reading works by Aristotle because he is one of the greatest philosophers, whose books give an insight how people thought many years ago and what was their meaning of the world and the rest of the things we take for granted today...
-
A classic communication art for many purpose, including to defend yourself or even in the art of language.
-
A great book for anyone seeking a lesson in good rhetorical skills. I still have this book on my shelf and enjoy going back to it every now and then for a refressher. The book has so much to offer, it is hard to absorb it all at once. A must for anyone wanting a true education in rhetoric.
-
While doing 'homework' for an online writing class with Aaron Sorkin, I had cause to reread Aristotle's short bible on dramatic writing. While it's still no page turner, the advice he offers remains essential to writers looking to craft solid plays, movies, and TV stories.
-
As one of the "Productive arts" of Aristotle's works (as opposed to the contemplative or practical) it is one of the more readable of his works. Both works are still eminently usable for aspiring rhetoricians or screenwriters/writers etc. I usually have my rhetoric students read sections of the rhetoric, and the entire Poetics (it's really short).
-
Le he puesto No Rating porque sólo he terminado Arte Poética; la que por cierto, debería ser una lectura fundamental para todxs lxs que amamos las letras.
-
Sometimes, if you say something, the same something, over and over again, in different ways, it will sound good in at least one of those ways. Again, varying yet repeating the ways of speaking the same words or writing the same text—including single paragraphs of, say, 5-pages in length—leads to a greater probability of at least some value in the communication therein. Likewise, what is said can be dry, drier, or as arid as a planet without a molecule of oxygen; the importance is in taking many words to say the same thing, over and over again, which will lead to some, unmeasurable affect. The inversion of words is a good method to accomplish this, such as: I am bored because I read this, or, this is boring and yet it is read, or, to read a boring thing is to punish oneself needlessly, or, is it the true punisher the boring book or the act of reading itself?
On Poetics is pretty good, though. -
Not what I expected.
"Rhetoric" is less philosophy and as the title suggests, more a "how-to" book on persuading and convincing people with words. Aristotle begins "Rhetoric" by comparing persuasive debating as a skill as important as winning wars. An alternative title could be "The Art of Words".
In the first of the three books in "Rhetoric" he explains what rhetoric is, when to use it, and why it is an important skill to have. He also explains the role of rhetoric in different forms of government.
In book two, he goes on to explain techniques in building persuasive arguments. Using fear, pleasure, justice and interpretation of law are some of the methods to strengthen an argument. Aristotle uses the "words as war" metaphor to illustrate tactics to discredit and tear down an opponents argument. He goes into examples of different techniques such as metaphors, similes, and maxims to strengthen an argument and give the audience relateable examples to simplify more complex points.
Book three discusses style. Avoiding superfluous words and phrases is advised. Delivering sentences in memorable and powerful cadences is as important as the content itself. He gets into technical examples of dos and don'ts of phrasing. He continues by impressing upon the importance of arranging content into a logical and convincing format. He explains when an introduction is needed and how to end with an effective epilogue. He also describes how to use mocking and jesting to discredit a digressing view and opponent.
In "Poetics", which is a short book of around 50-60 pages, Aristotle compares different forms of poems. He breaks them into three different categories, tragedy, epic, and comedy. Tragedy is a story with a concise time frame of typically 24 hours or less. As the name suggests, a surprise and a denouement will strike the hero of the story at one point. The epic is a story told over a longer period of time. The epic poem has less formal rules and rigidity than a tragedy. Aristotle concludes that tragedy is the highest form of the three genres of poems. He provides various examples, especially from Homer and Sophocles of good poetry.
Both books are well written and informative. If you are looking for Aristotle's views on the meaning of life, spirituality and ethics, these books do not hold those answers. -
Про "Риторику" Аристотеля в первую очередь следует знать то, что эта работа всё еще имеет значительную практическую ценность. Ее и сейчас можно считать полноценным справочником выступающего, который охватывает возможные цели речи; указывает на присущую каждому типу речи ключевую ценность и раскрывает ее особенности; описывает, в чем состоят основные эмоции и как их можно возбудить в слушателях, наконец, касается вопросов стиля.
Выступающий, кто воспользуется советами Аристотеля, наконец заживет полной жизнью. Он увидит ценность не только умозаключений, но и метафор; демонстрации не только доказательств, но и своего характера; увидит ценность обращения не только к "судьям" в каком-либо вопросе, но и к "простым зрителям". -
How is one supposed to rate Greek philosophy?
One gives it three stars to err on the side of better than average but still fall lazily asleep because it is mostly dated and frustrating.
Rules on how to be a good orator. How I be speak nice.
Rules on how to write good poetry. Thou must, like a meadow, understand the too blue truths of meter and form.
Rules on how to etc.
Bedtime.
Greece. -
Interesting. Agreed with some points, disagreed with others. He seemed chauvinistic at times.
-
In large part this work reads like a walk through a man's extensive tool shed, and could be very useful if applied or examples are found. Sometimes Aristotle from thousands of years ago does not come across very clear on these technicalities. The editorship could have done something about it, I am just not of the disposition to read anything from Modern academia. Anyway it could be there. (But probably not). Routes to further inquiry are here, for example, is my prose in this review good because it's fitting the paean meter? (Probably not either.)
Distill down to what is clear and you have pure gold. What makes speech persuasive? This could be of great use to those with authority. Unless we are natural leaders -alphas or what have you-, a good portion of this will be instructive. Basically first show you are of good sense, to which a large part of this work is dedicated - showing the reasoning about the objects of the three main kinds of rhetoric, that for litigation, ceremonial honoring or roasting, and political deliberation. Second show that you are honest, presenting things about yourself that would evidence that you have nothing to hide from your audience or no reason to lie. And third and very importantly show that you're friendly, which is itself treated as an emotion here, but gains trust to then influence all the other emotions. Another large section treats of these emotions, which is very relevant to ethics. What good leaders in your life have shown these things? Have you seen bad authorities do the opposites?
Also what makes a poem good? Now this part can be misleading in its titles, because a tragedy and a poem used to be distinct from a mere sad story or self-indulgent word salad. For example a poem is what, in language, rhythm and harmony, represents human action, as issuing from good or bad character. The details of why a good plot is the priority goal, and character secondary, how this relates to human flourishing, necessity and probability (or moral-spiritual laws- I would call them) is highly valuable and interesting. Much of it still seems obscure just in these places that are so clear however. For example, he says the best tragedy is one in which the protagonist falls from good to bad fortune (pg 239), yet where the intended action of the protagonist which is in error is left undone (241), yet this can be a happy ending (237). Why is there a change to bad fortune if the primary error is not committed? (I suppose reading his cited Cresphontes or Iphigenia by Euripides could disclose this.) And why is it a happy ending if it ends in misfortune? I would guess it's because of gaining the more valuable wisdom, but I don't know what he had in mind.
With the outlines to sort through the large technical parts and your notes to show you where the brilliant parts are, it should be clear that this is a classic for a reason. -
Since I decided to incorporate rhetorical analysis in the courses that I teach, I figured that I needed to read the classic work on rhetoric. I picked up this edition a number of years ago at a rummage sale, and it had the Poetics as well. Reading these works and the introductory material helped me to see how integrated Aristotle's ideas were across his works, since the Rhetoric related not only to the the Poetics but to his works on logic, ethics, and politics as well (I have not read these). The introductory material also pointed out Aristotle's differences with his teacher Plato on rhetoric and imitative poetry.
-
I won't lie, a lot of this went over my head. This wasn't helped by Aristotle's meandering writing, and I probably won't have the patience to revisit it anytime soon. From what I understood, I agreed with much of it and disagreed with some, but nothing struck me as particularly profound. To me, it reads like some guy, if an intelligent guy, just giving his opinions about stuff. I suppose that's philosophy.
-
Runs the gamut of incredible mic drop moments to statements so obvious as to be meaningless.
Wonderful framing:
"not necessarily to succeed in persuading, but to come as close in each as circumstances will allow"
"not the function of medicine to simply make a man quite healthy but to put him as far as may be on the road to health"
You can only do so much as a rhetorician. -
A bit dry but interesting to see how much we still agree with most of Aristotle's thoughts on writing and speaking. The notes were very helpful, not just for the occasional clarification but also for the explanation of countless references that won't mean anything to today's average reader.
-
I picked this book up for one reason and that is for English. I am a fool, this is not a book for me at all. It is hard and has a lot of Latin. I should pick my books more carefully from now on. But if you are a fan of Greek philosophy you will probably enjoy!
-
Interesting
-
Uma obra clássica que continua a influenciar diferentes artes (literatura, teatro, música, cinema, ...), dando luzes sobre a arte de bem escrever e bem falar.
-
Está medio muy abstracto. Pero tiene partes con mucha carnita. La cosa es que cuesta trabajo mordisquear esas partes y separarlas del hueso.
-
DNF
-
(tr. S.H. Butcher)
-
Foundational.
