Rhetoric In Plato, Burke, Bitzer, Buber

The definition of rhetoric has been a contentious topic for centuries. Is a soup can rhetorical? An image of a grassy hill? Is it verbal, representational, or literal? The answer to these questions is yes, if portrayed in a specific light. Upon examining the writings of Plato, Burke, Bitzer, Buber, and Aristotle, let Rhetoric be defined as the timely and proper conveying of a stance on a relevant topic meant to persuade a specific audience to feel or act in a specific way. For one to have used rhetoric, it is necessary that there be a situation to be addressed, an audience that can enact the change envisioned by the rhetor, and an understanding of a fitting response within the confines of that unique rhetorical situation. This tool, like any other, must be used …show more content…
Motive, according to Burke, is a mental decision taken by the rhetor that shapes the emphasis of the key aspects of rhetoric. A rhetor, based on their specific motive, will emphasize or hide certain aspects of an event to more effectively persuade an audience. Burke notes that these motives leave ambiguous areas in rhetoric for the sake of persuasive power. His pentad focusses on the relationships between the act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose surrounding the piece of rhetoric. These relationships are determined by the rhetors desired result, and are often stilted between one or two key relationships that will highlight that which is most convincing and hide that which might detract from the rhetors purpose. It does not “avoid ambiguity, but clearly reveal[s] the strategic spots at which ambiguities arise” (Burke 217) so that rhetors and audience’s alike can more easily identify implicit motives. It is necessary that a rhetor also evaluate their use of rhetoric to look for underlying motives that could be used more effectively to persuade their audience or address their