Aristotle Book 2

While reading Aristotle I was very surprised at how much I was able to understand. I read book 2 Chapter 18. The two sections that stood out to me were in the beginning and the middle of the piece. First Aristotle discusses the use of rhetoric and the discussions that have been had. He states that if a a topic has already been discussed and come to a conclusion it no longer needs to be discussed further. He stated, "Since the use of persuasive speech is directed to a judgement (there is no further need of speech on subjects that we know and have already judged)" (156).  While I think he makes the point that there is no need to waste time he ignores that things change and sometimes you have to revisit a subject you thought had already concluded. Next what I thought was interesting is how he approaches the topic of competing an argument that has no conclusion. Aristotle explains, "let us try to speak about enthymemes in general terms, so far as we can, and about paradigms, in order that having added what remains, we may complete the program originally outlined" (157). I thought this was a very bold idea because he seeks to answer the unanswered. To me it seems like he wants to conquer the continually circling debates that never end and always continue in the same patterns. This is supposed to be impossible, but he asks that instead of it being considered impossible to be conquered and answered instead of letting people to continue to wonder about the answer.

Gorgias's Ecomium of Helen

For this past reading I struggled to understand what these men were talking about. I definitely understand why they are considered to be great philosophers. One idea that I did latch onto though was with Gorgias's Ecomium of Helen. This text sought to use rhetoric to prove that Helen was not to blame for the the Trojan war. In the beginning of the text there is a paragraph that says, "for it is equal error and ignorance to blame the praiseworthy and to praise the blameworthy".  By having this idea at the beginning of his paper he was able to force the readers to pay attention. He almost calls them out by pointing out their ignorances. If the reader were to ignore this and not listen to his argument then he would have to face his ignorance. This then makes them pay attention to the entire document and possibly acknowledge the argument that Gorgias makes. This is a double edged sword though because if Gorgias is wrong he faces being ignorant for praising Helen. The rhetoric used here though is an incredible tool though it helped draw the reader in.

General Introduction

One of my favorite parts about attending school is when what I learn in class correlates with what I see happening through out the nation and the world. After the 2016 election, I saw a direct correlation between the way the candidates ideas were presented and the reaction from the audience. The reason for this is because the speakers were using specific forms of rhetoric to create a desired reaction from the audience. 

Rhetoric has been apart of education since the fifth century B.C.E. "When it developed in Greek Probate courts and flourished under Greek democracy"(1). Rhetoric is the art of persuasive speaking and can control the flow of power throughout a government. It is more than stating facts and providing information. It is providing this information in a way that not only informs the audience, but also moves them. Rhetoric demands that Logos, Ethos, and Pathos be used. Successful rhetoric will change minds or at the very least get the opposing side of an argument to pause and think. Although involving human stories is important rhetoric must rely on factual information as well, "It suggests resources for evidence and argument and gives rules for accurate reasoning" (2).  

 One of the reasons I believe learning about rhetoric is important is because not only are you able to prepare a convincing argument, but you can see through another persons argument. The ability to dissect and see the logical fallacies that another person uses can help you understand the strength of an argument rather than just being moved by what another person says. 

Aristotle was able to break down rhetoric into three separate forms of public speech. One was used for the courtroom, legal or forensic speech. Another was used for political or deliberative speech, this is what we see in every day media and political debates. Finally, ceremonial or epideictic public. Understanding the history of rhetoric will help us understand the type of rhetoric that we see used today.