Analyzing Aristotle´s Ancient Rhetoric

Rhetoric is the gift or art of persuasion that dates back to the time of Aristotle and as he defined it “The faculty of observing in any given situation the available means of persuasion.” (St. John, 2013). After learning about rhetoric writing and speeches I was really unsure the skill was good or bad and whether or not it should still be taught. While writing this paper I was speaking to my girlfriend and she said, “of course it is a good thing. Without it, life would be boring if you really think about. What it be like to read a book without it? It would be terrible as you would not be convinced you are there or believe the story.” (Orr, 2015). Rhetoric is much more than persuading a person to do what you want. Aristotle divided rhetoric …show more content…
The first part is deliberative, and is used mainly in speeches and are used for a call for some sort of action. In the book Ancient Rhetoric’s for contemporary students it says, “awhile the topic of future conjecture is often used in deliberative assemblies, such as state legislatures, which have the responsibility to make policy” (Crowley S. & Hawhee D., 2004). These areas are the most common place to find the deliberative part of rhetoric. It is the way questions approached by the rhetor and the rhetoricians. The rhetor may say something has happened and should do this cause of it. This type of rhetoric is needed and necessary for everyday use for us to have laws passed, assemblies for organizations, and school forums. The second part of Aristotle’s idea of rhetoric is the judicial style also called the forensic type of exchange. “This style is used in speeches concerning the future, or to accuse or defend something” (St. John, 2013). Forensic type questions would sound more like which policy’s should pass and why or why not. The third and final part of Aristotle’s idea of rhetoric is the epideictic style. This style is typically found in the world of politics. It is used in, “occasional speaking, speeches concerning the present, and placing praise or blame on an individual or group” (St. John, 2013). Epideictic would be more like statements than questions such as, it is the …show more content…
There are three areas that a rhetor uses and they are a person’s ethos, pathos, and logos. These are known as, “discriminated three kinds of intrinsic rhetorical proofs: ethos, pathos, and logos” (Crowley S. & Hawhee D., 2004). I think these are what people decide to follow. Ethos, or ethical as it is translated, refers to a person’s character. Meaning it attacks or retracts from a person’s inner character and their moral fiber. While pathos, or pathetic, is a person’s emotional response to something. It survives solely on the audience’s emotional appeal for or against something. What does the audience feel about what the speaker has to say? And the last is logos, or logical, thoughts on what is being said. This is completely based on the audience belief in the logical argument. Here a speaker could use data such as statistics to make a point that seems