Aristotelian Rhetoric Essay

Rhetoric, in general, refers to ways a language that can be written or spoken. Rhetoric is a way to throw people’s opinions off by ways of speaking well or through means of written communications. For two thousand years, Aristotelian rhetoric became a matter of the past rhetoric, not the stereotype of philosophy. Rhetoric is an art with a thesis with a lot of cons and pros which is listed under dialectical dialogue. Rhetoric is a form of persuasion, which provokes audience’s emotions. This type of persuasion performed before an audience is not only a matter of proofs and arguments with the emotional attitudes and the credibility. You can also define rhetoric as the ability to see that there audience and conceal their real aims, since someone who just wants to communicate the truth could be straight forward and …show more content…
The art of rhetoric has considerations with and delivery and style. Aristotle preached that you have to get the audience involved because the worse the condition of the audience the less effective the speech becomes because the audience is not focused and really don’t care what is being said. He went on to explain that when we don’t judge in the same way as we rejoice, grieve or rejoice when we are hostile or friendly. Aristotelian rhetoric as such is a neutral tool that can be used by persons of virtuous or depraved character. This capacity can be used for good or bad purposes; it can cause great benefits as well as great harms. There is no doubt that Aristotle himself regards his system of rhetoric as something useful, but the good purposes for which rhetoric is useful do not define the rhetorical capacity as such(plato). Aristotle definitely define rhetoric as being really helpful and the best of the best. That may not always be the case. There is always something better and more useful but rhetoric we will be useful and has paved the way to political processes