Analysis Of Aristotle's Inauguration Speech

Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, discussed the art of persuasion in his well-known treatise titled Rhetoric. He believed rhetoric is a practical activity, meaning it is focused on the act of doing. Rhetoric is a form of art that is restricted to the dialectic in pursuit of probable truth. Trump’s Inauguration Speech materializes using nationalist arguments with Donald Trump himself being the efficient cause, or the speaker. The form of his speech is that of a deliberative genre, indicating it is concerned with politics and the future. The final cause of the Inauguration Speech is both to persuade and, historically speaking, to unite the American people. Aristotle believed rhetoric had the potential to make democracy flourish, but this was under the assumption that the people governing would be well-versed in the art of rhetoric and the use of ethos, pathos, and logos. In contrast, Aristotle’s predecessor, Plato, recognized that rhetoric had potential to be misused by those with ulterior motives. Trump’s Inauguration Speech followed a similar tone to that of his entire campaign—centralized on a …show more content…
Aristotle would have harshly criticized Trump’s over-reliance on the pathos appeal and his poorly projected ethos. Donald Trump, notorious for his unstructured, low style during his campaign, delivered an Inauguration Speech using minimal rhetorical embellishment that largely relied on the pathos appeal. In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he outlined three artistic means of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. Logos is the logical argument, pathos is the emotional appeal, and ethos is the projected credibility of the speaker. Although they are independent, the three appeals are complementary to one another and when used in conjunction can make one a master of rhetoric. In his Inauguration Speech, Trump relied heavily on the emotional appeal. His use of the appeal portrays a