What do you think?
Rate this book
The Art of Rhetoric
With the emergence of democracy in the city-state of Athens in the years around 460 BC, public speaking became an essential skill for politicians in the Assemblies and Councils – and even for ordinary citizens in the courts of law. In response, the technique of rhetoric rapidly developed, bringing virtuoso performances and a host of practical manuals for the layman. While many of these were little more than collections of debaters’ tricks, the Art of Rhetoric held a far deeper purpose. Here Aristotle establishes the methods of informal reasoning, provides the first aesthetic evaluation of prose style and offers detailed observations on character and the emotions. Hugely influential upon later Western culture, the Art of Rhetoric is a fascinating consideration of the force of persuasion and sophistry, and a compelling guide to the principles behind oratorical skill.
292 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 323
About the author
Aristotle
3,435 books4,803 followers384 BC–322 BC
Greek philosopher Aristotle, a pupil of Plato and the tutor of Alexander the Great, authored works on ethics, natural sciences, politics, and poetics that profoundly influenced western thought; empirical observation precedes theory, and the syllogism bases logic, the essential method of rational inquiry in his system, which led him to see and to criticize metaphysical excesses.
Empirical, scientific, or commonsensical methods of an Aristotelian, also Aristotelean, a person, tends to think. Deductive method, especially the theory of the syllogism, defines Aristotelian logic. The formal logic, based on that of Aristotle, deals with the relations between propositions in terms of their form instead of their content.
Commentaries of well known Arab philosopher, jurist, and physician Averroës ibn Rushd of Spain on Aristotle exerted a strong influence on medieval Christian theology.
German religious philosopher Saint Albertus Magnus later sought to apply his methods to current scientific questions. Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the most influential thinker of the medieval period, combined doctrine of Aristotle within a context of Christianity.
Aristotle numbers among the greatest of all time. Almost peerless, he shaped centuries from late antiquity through the Renaissance, and people even today continue to study him with keen, non-antiquarian interest. This prodigious researcher and writer left a great body, perhaps numbering as many as two hundred treatises, from which 31 survive. His extant writings span a wide range of disciplines from mind through aesthetics and rhetoric and into such primary fields as biology; he excelled at detailed plant and animal taxonomy. In all these topics, he provided illumination, met with resistance, sparked debate, and generally stimulated the sustained interest of an abiding readership.
Wide range and its remoteness in time defies easy encapsulation. The long history of interpretation and appropriation of texts and themes, spanning over two millennia within a variety of religious and secular traditions, rendered controversial even basic points of interpretation.
Greek philosopher Aristotle, a pupil of Plato and the tutor of Alexander the Great, authored works on ethics, natural sciences, politics, and poetics that profoundly influenced western thought; empirical observation precedes theory, and the syllogism bases logic, the essential method of rational inquiry in his system, which led him to see and to criticize metaphysical excesses.
Empirical, scientific, or commonsensical methods of an Aristotelian, also Aristotelean, a person, tends to think. Deductive method, especially the theory of the syllogism, defines Aristotelian logic. The formal logic, based on that of Aristotle, deals with the relations between propositions in terms of their form instead of their content.
Commentaries of well known Arab philosopher, jurist, and physician Averroës ibn Rushd of Spain on Aristotle exerted a strong influence on medieval Christian theology.
German religious philosopher Saint Albertus Magnus later sought to apply his methods to current scientific questions. Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the most influential thinker of the medieval period, combined doctrine of Aristotle within a context of Christianity.
Aristotle numbers among the greatest of all time. Almost peerless, he shaped centuries from late antiquity through the Renaissance, and people even today continue to study him with keen, non-antiquarian interest. This prodigious researcher and writer left a great body, perhaps numbering as many as two hundred treatises, from which 31 survive. His extant writings span a wide range of disciplines from mind through aesthetics and rhetoric and into such primary fields as biology; he excelled at detailed plant and animal taxonomy. In all these topics, he provided illumination, met with resistance, sparked debate, and generally stimulated the sustained interest of an abiding readership.
Wide range and its remoteness in time defies easy encapsulation. The long history of interpretation and appropriation of texts and themes, spanning over two millennia within a variety of religious and secular traditions, rendered controversial even basic points of interpretation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 331 reviews
June 23, 2014
Not Aristotle's clearest or best organized work, but still part of the core curriculum of a liberal education.
Why read Aristotle today? Because he is one of the greatest minds in Western history, and such a person's well-considered thoughts are inherently worth reading, if anything is.
In addition, this book was deliberately aimed at those seeking to play an active role in a democratic society, to help them fulfill their function as citizens of a free society. We in the West imagine ourselves (mostly) to be members of a free society, and in fact take this for granted. But we tend not to participate in the political functioning of our society, and in general are not encouraged to do so. Most particularly, we are not educated to do so.
In the ancient world the idea of the liberal education was formed: an education fitting for a free man, that is, one who was a participating citizen of a democratic state. In ancient Greece the citizens themselves formed the government of their city-states, and every citizen might expect to hold a government post at one or more times in his life. What knowledge did such a man need to fulfill his role in the best way? Which faculties should he cultivate and which suppress?
Liberal education came to be envisaged as training in the seven "liberal arts": logic, grammar, rhetoric, mathematics, geometry, music, and astronomy. By medieval times these were split into two groups: a higher trivium consisting of the first 3, and a lower quadrivium consisting of the latter 4. As Sister Miriam Joseph explains in her excellent book The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric, these arts remain as relevant today as they ever were. For the art called logic is simply the art of how to think accurately about reality; the art of grammar is the art of expressing one's thoughts accurately in symbolic form, such as words; and the art of rhetoric is the art of persuading others of the validity of one's thoughts. Aristotle's book is probably still the most important text on this third art of the trivium.
In broad strokes, Aristotle analyzes rhetoric and finds that it has 3 main applications, namely judicial, or talking about past events; deliberative, or talking about future courses of action; and so-called epideictic, or talking about the present, which Aristotle says is mostly connected with formally praising and blaming people. Facing one of these three tasks, the speaker or rhetor has 3 basic strategies of persuasion: logical argument, or persuasion via facts and logic; emotional argument, or finding language to arouse certain feelings in the audience; and the so-called moral argument, which consists in winning the audience's trust and good will through one's own character and demeanor. Interestingly, Aristotle regards this last "argument" as the most persuasive element in a speech. In terms of persuasion, how we say things is more important than what we say.
There are further detailed breakdowns of how to achieve these various aims, illustrated in many cases with examples.
The translator, George A. Kennedy, provides a summary of the main points of each chapter, along with interesting historical material and some notes about how Aristotle fits in with the flow of ancient teaching on rhetoric generally (for it was a subject keenly studied in both Greece and Rome). For my taste there is perhaps more attention drawn than necessary to academic issues like the question of whether certain sections were later additions and other minutiae of translation. In many cases he puts the original Greek term in brackets by the English word, which again is aimed at an academic reader. In general though I found the translator's comments useful and illuminating.
Like all of Aristotle's surviving works, this is a technical manual (all of his publications for the general reader have been lost), and so you need some determination to get through it. But our society is becoming ever less free, and it's not going to become more free unless each of us takes responsibility for training ourselves to be free. It won't happen by itself; and our society--governments, schools, institutions--isn't doing it.
A free society settles its differences through dialogue, not violence or fraud. This book is still a major text on how to do that. As such, it's well worth our time and attention all these centuries after it was first written.
Why read Aristotle today? Because he is one of the greatest minds in Western history, and such a person's well-considered thoughts are inherently worth reading, if anything is.
In addition, this book was deliberately aimed at those seeking to play an active role in a democratic society, to help them fulfill their function as citizens of a free society. We in the West imagine ourselves (mostly) to be members of a free society, and in fact take this for granted. But we tend not to participate in the political functioning of our society, and in general are not encouraged to do so. Most particularly, we are not educated to do so.
In the ancient world the idea of the liberal education was formed: an education fitting for a free man, that is, one who was a participating citizen of a democratic state. In ancient Greece the citizens themselves formed the government of their city-states, and every citizen might expect to hold a government post at one or more times in his life. What knowledge did such a man need to fulfill his role in the best way? Which faculties should he cultivate and which suppress?
Liberal education came to be envisaged as training in the seven "liberal arts": logic, grammar, rhetoric, mathematics, geometry, music, and astronomy. By medieval times these were split into two groups: a higher trivium consisting of the first 3, and a lower quadrivium consisting of the latter 4. As Sister Miriam Joseph explains in her excellent book The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric, these arts remain as relevant today as they ever were. For the art called logic is simply the art of how to think accurately about reality; the art of grammar is the art of expressing one's thoughts accurately in symbolic form, such as words; and the art of rhetoric is the art of persuading others of the validity of one's thoughts. Aristotle's book is probably still the most important text on this third art of the trivium.
In broad strokes, Aristotle analyzes rhetoric and finds that it has 3 main applications, namely judicial, or talking about past events; deliberative, or talking about future courses of action; and so-called epideictic, or talking about the present, which Aristotle says is mostly connected with formally praising and blaming people. Facing one of these three tasks, the speaker or rhetor has 3 basic strategies of persuasion: logical argument, or persuasion via facts and logic; emotional argument, or finding language to arouse certain feelings in the audience; and the so-called moral argument, which consists in winning the audience's trust and good will through one's own character and demeanor. Interestingly, Aristotle regards this last "argument" as the most persuasive element in a speech. In terms of persuasion, how we say things is more important than what we say.
There are further detailed breakdowns of how to achieve these various aims, illustrated in many cases with examples.
The translator, George A. Kennedy, provides a summary of the main points of each chapter, along with interesting historical material and some notes about how Aristotle fits in with the flow of ancient teaching on rhetoric generally (for it was a subject keenly studied in both Greece and Rome). For my taste there is perhaps more attention drawn than necessary to academic issues like the question of whether certain sections were later additions and other minutiae of translation. In many cases he puts the original Greek term in brackets by the English word, which again is aimed at an academic reader. In general though I found the translator's comments useful and illuminating.
Like all of Aristotle's surviving works, this is a technical manual (all of his publications for the general reader have been lost), and so you need some determination to get through it. But our society is becoming ever less free, and it's not going to become more free unless each of us takes responsibility for training ourselves to be free. It won't happen by itself; and our society--governments, schools, institutions--isn't doing it.
A free society settles its differences through dialogue, not violence or fraud. This book is still a major text on how to do that. As such, it's well worth our time and attention all these centuries after it was first written.
July 25, 2010
Aristotle defines. Unmercifully. And The Art of Rhetoric is no exception. Aristotle disdained the sophist tradition of ancient Greece as much as Plato, but he also understood that rhetoric was a popular study of the day and it became another discipline he sought to master. With a scientific eye and a mind toward philosophical value, Aristotle studied rhetoric as “the power to observe the persuasiveness of which any particular matter admits” (pg. 74; Ch. 1.2). Rhetoric, when used appropriately, becomes a tool of the dialectic instead of one that subverts.
So begins the dissection of speech. There are three genres of rhetoric: deliberative, forensic and epideictic (display). But regardless for what purpose the rhetorician speaks, there are three components to each speech: ethos (the ethics of the speaker), pathos (the emotions of the audience) and logos (the logic of the words).
What follows is a practical handbook for the orator. Part psychology, part theory part logic, The Art of Rhetoric lists considerations for the public speaker. The age of the audience, the nature of a government’s citizenry and a thorough examination of the motives for various emotions fill Book II. In many ways, Book II resembles the Nicomachean Ethics in its utilitarian analysis of what drives human beings.
However, Book III resembles Poetics in its methodical analysis of persuasive writing. Aristotle covers the value and pitfalls of metaphor, similes and other devices. He examines what makes “frigid” language and rhythmic speech. As with Book II, it is chocked full of examples of the good and bad.
To fully appreciate The Art of Rhetoric, one must have a strong familiarity with its context. Which, quite honestly, I don’t. Undoubtedly, the competing schools of rhetoric defined Athenian education and Aristotle was competing against Isocrates for students. Though most likely one of the first and most comprehensive collection of thoughts on the components of rhetoric, for the modern reader the ideas are at times dated and over generalized. The examples that Aristotle serves as benchmarks for various enthymemes (truncated syllogisms relying on commonly understood principles) are unknown to modern audiences. Likewise, his rudimentary psychological analysis of his audience is overbroad (though still impressive given his pioneering of this discipline at the time).
For historical importance, this is most likely a five star work. But we have the advantage of not living in ancient Greece. In terms of enjoyment, and actual value for the modern reader, these ideas regarding communication and public speaking have been conveyed more clearly and effectively by other writers.
__________________________________________________________
One interesting comparison of East/West thought can be seen by these two passages. First, Aristotle:
So begins the dissection of speech. There are three genres of rhetoric: deliberative, forensic and epideictic (display). But regardless for what purpose the rhetorician speaks, there are three components to each speech: ethos (the ethics of the speaker), pathos (the emotions of the audience) and logos (the logic of the words).
What follows is a practical handbook for the orator. Part psychology, part theory part logic, The Art of Rhetoric lists considerations for the public speaker. The age of the audience, the nature of a government’s citizenry and a thorough examination of the motives for various emotions fill Book II. In many ways, Book II resembles the Nicomachean Ethics in its utilitarian analysis of what drives human beings.
However, Book III resembles Poetics in its methodical analysis of persuasive writing. Aristotle covers the value and pitfalls of metaphor, similes and other devices. He examines what makes “frigid” language and rhythmic speech. As with Book II, it is chocked full of examples of the good and bad.
To fully appreciate The Art of Rhetoric, one must have a strong familiarity with its context. Which, quite honestly, I don’t. Undoubtedly, the competing schools of rhetoric defined Athenian education and Aristotle was competing against Isocrates for students. Though most likely one of the first and most comprehensive collection of thoughts on the components of rhetoric, for the modern reader the ideas are at times dated and over generalized. The examples that Aristotle serves as benchmarks for various enthymemes (truncated syllogisms relying on commonly understood principles) are unknown to modern audiences. Likewise, his rudimentary psychological analysis of his audience is overbroad (though still impressive given his pioneering of this discipline at the time).
For historical importance, this is most likely a five star work. But we have the advantage of not living in ancient Greece. In terms of enjoyment, and actual value for the modern reader, these ideas regarding communication and public speaking have been conveyed more clearly and effectively by other writers.
__________________________________________________________
One interesting comparison of East/West thought can be seen by these two passages. First, Aristotle:
Surely everyone would agree that one or more of these is happiness. If, then happiness is some such thing, its elements must be: Gentle birth, a wide circle of friends, a virtuous circle of friends, wealth, creditable offspring, extensive offspring and a comfortable old age; also the physical virtues (e.g. health, beauty, strength, size and competitive prowess), reputation, status, good luck and virtue…(pg. 87, Ch. 1.5, circa 4th century B.C. emphasis added)Compared to Lie Yukou, circa 5th century B.C, whose sayings were compiled in the Lieh Tzu (Liezi) in the 3rd or 4th century A.D:
There are four things," states a Taoist work of this age (the Lieh Tzu: third century A.D.), "that do not allow people to have peace. The first is long life, the second is reputation, the third is rank, and the fourth is riches. Those who have these things fear ghosts, fear men, fear power, and fear punishment. They are called fugitives…(Oriental Mythology; Campbell, Joseph pg. 435)
April 20, 2008
I'm sure it's excellent, necessary, brilliantly designed, etc. But so is a sewer system, and you don't want to spend too much time there either.
January 22, 2023
In his book, Aristotle teaches the reader the art of persuasion, otherwise known as rhetoric. He divides arguments – means of persuasion available to the speaker – into two kinds: non-artistic and artistic.
The non-artistic kind are those that do not require from the speaker to be a skillful rhetorician. He just has to use them. Such non-artistic proofs are five, according to the author: laws, witnesses, contracts, oaths, and torture. He believed that lawyers who plead cases in court use them the most, but, if applied to modern politics, they can be used by representatives to persuade citizens to accept a new tax, for instance. I found his views on torture interesting. He noted that one can be tempted to use it because if it is in one's favor, one can exaggerate its importance by asserting that it is the only true kind of proof, and if it is in favor of the other side, he can dismiss it by pointing out that tortured people are likely to give false testimonies. Progressively for Ancient Greece, where torture was lawfully used, Aristotle underscored that torture cannot be relied on as proof.
The artistic kind of arguments are those that require rhetorical skills to be used. They are logos, or rational appeal, pathos, or emotional appeal, and ethos, or ethical appeal.
When using logos, the speaker appeals to the understanding of the audience – he argues for his point. To argue, one has either to draw conclusions from affirmative or negative statements or to make generalizations based on observations. In other words, one has to reason either inductively or deductively. An instance of inductive reasoning is "Every grape that I ate was sweet, so all grapes are probably sweet." An instance of deductive reasoning is the well-known "All men are mortal, and all Greeks are men, so all Greeks are mortal." In logic, this deductive way of thinking is known as syllogism, a term that Aristotle used. It is important to remember that only a conclusion that is logical can be called a syllogism. Woody Allen's famous conclusion, "All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates," is definitely not a syllogism.
In rhetoric, a syllogism is called the enthymeme. As Aristotle writes, "The enthymeme must consist of few propositions, fewer often than those which make up a normal syllogism." This is why the enthymeme is now considered a shortened syllogism, an argument that includes the conclusion and one of the premises, with the other premise only implied. For instance, turned into an enthymeme, the syllogism above would sound like this: "Since all Greeks are men, they are all mortal." The conclusion – all Greeks are mortal – is included and so is one of the premises – all Greeks are men. The implied premise is that all men are mortal. The enthymeme helps the orator because it excludes the parts of the argument that the auidence would be impatient to listen to or unable to follow.
Aristotle wanted rhetoric to focus only on rational appeals, but he was realistic enough to understand that people have free will and are swayed by passions and emotions. He accepted that if rhetoric was indeed the art of discovering all available ways to persuade, it had to include an inquiry into the means of touching people's emotions. This is why he devoted the second part of his work to analyzing human emotions, which the speaker has to know and learn how to provoke or restrain. For instance, he discussed how the orator can prevent the members of his audience from feeling pity by provoking their indignation and envy. He explained that these two emotions were the opposite of pity, so the speaker had to appeal to them: "if the envious man is pained at another's possession or acquisition of good fortune, he is bound to rejoice at the destruction or non-acquisition of the same."
The third way to persuade, as defined by the author, is ethos. It relies on the character of the speaker, especially on the way he presents his character in his speech. To appeal to the audience, he brings himself in their favor by making an impression that he is a man of intelligence, benevolence, and integrity. Aristotle believed that ethos could be the most effective of the three kinds of artistic ways of persuasion because even if the orator can convince the people with logic and touch their emotions, his efforts will not be successful if the audience does not trust him. However, he also wrote that which of the three appeals is most suitable depends on what we are arguing for, on the circumstances, and on the kind of audience that we are addressing.
THE "ART" OF RHETORIC is thought-provoking and well-written. Translated by John Henry Freese, Aristotle's work is not difficult to understand. This book would be of interest to anyone who wants to know about rhetoric and to become more aware of the ways in which others can influence our views and choices with their words.
The non-artistic kind are those that do not require from the speaker to be a skillful rhetorician. He just has to use them. Such non-artistic proofs are five, according to the author: laws, witnesses, contracts, oaths, and torture. He believed that lawyers who plead cases in court use them the most, but, if applied to modern politics, they can be used by representatives to persuade citizens to accept a new tax, for instance. I found his views on torture interesting. He noted that one can be tempted to use it because if it is in one's favor, one can exaggerate its importance by asserting that it is the only true kind of proof, and if it is in favor of the other side, he can dismiss it by pointing out that tortured people are likely to give false testimonies. Progressively for Ancient Greece, where torture was lawfully used, Aristotle underscored that torture cannot be relied on as proof.
The artistic kind of arguments are those that require rhetorical skills to be used. They are logos, or rational appeal, pathos, or emotional appeal, and ethos, or ethical appeal.
When using logos, the speaker appeals to the understanding of the audience – he argues for his point. To argue, one has either to draw conclusions from affirmative or negative statements or to make generalizations based on observations. In other words, one has to reason either inductively or deductively. An instance of inductive reasoning is "Every grape that I ate was sweet, so all grapes are probably sweet." An instance of deductive reasoning is the well-known "All men are mortal, and all Greeks are men, so all Greeks are mortal." In logic, this deductive way of thinking is known as syllogism, a term that Aristotle used. It is important to remember that only a conclusion that is logical can be called a syllogism. Woody Allen's famous conclusion, "All men are mortal. Socrates was mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates," is definitely not a syllogism.
In rhetoric, a syllogism is called the enthymeme. As Aristotle writes, "The enthymeme must consist of few propositions, fewer often than those which make up a normal syllogism." This is why the enthymeme is now considered a shortened syllogism, an argument that includes the conclusion and one of the premises, with the other premise only implied. For instance, turned into an enthymeme, the syllogism above would sound like this: "Since all Greeks are men, they are all mortal." The conclusion – all Greeks are mortal – is included and so is one of the premises – all Greeks are men. The implied premise is that all men are mortal. The enthymeme helps the orator because it excludes the parts of the argument that the auidence would be impatient to listen to or unable to follow.
Aristotle wanted rhetoric to focus only on rational appeals, but he was realistic enough to understand that people have free will and are swayed by passions and emotions. He accepted that if rhetoric was indeed the art of discovering all available ways to persuade, it had to include an inquiry into the means of touching people's emotions. This is why he devoted the second part of his work to analyzing human emotions, which the speaker has to know and learn how to provoke or restrain. For instance, he discussed how the orator can prevent the members of his audience from feeling pity by provoking their indignation and envy. He explained that these two emotions were the opposite of pity, so the speaker had to appeal to them: "if the envious man is pained at another's possession or acquisition of good fortune, he is bound to rejoice at the destruction or non-acquisition of the same."
The third way to persuade, as defined by the author, is ethos. It relies on the character of the speaker, especially on the way he presents his character in his speech. To appeal to the audience, he brings himself in their favor by making an impression that he is a man of intelligence, benevolence, and integrity. Aristotle believed that ethos could be the most effective of the three kinds of artistic ways of persuasion because even if the orator can convince the people with logic and touch their emotions, his efforts will not be successful if the audience does not trust him. However, he also wrote that which of the three appeals is most suitable depends on what we are arguing for, on the circumstances, and on the kind of audience that we are addressing.
THE "ART" OF RHETORIC is thought-provoking and well-written. Translated by John Henry Freese, Aristotle's work is not difficult to understand. This book would be of interest to anyone who wants to know about rhetoric and to become more aware of the ways in which others can influence our views and choices with their words.
August 24, 2018
Aristoteles'in Platon'un "Gorgias"da bahsettiği Retorik kavramını bir üst seviyeye taşıdığı eseri "The Art of Rhetoric / Retorik", insani tutumlara dair mükemmele yakın tanımlamarıyla adeta bir hayat sözlüğü niteliğinde. Kıskançlık, kibir, gurur, hırs, yaşlılık, gençlik gibi bir sürü kavramın açıklamalarını okuma şansı bulduğumuz eserde özellikle ilk iki kitabı okurken ünlü filozofun zekasına ve gözlemlerine hayran kalıyorsunuz. Öte yandan, eğretileme ve konuşma tekniklerinden bahsettiği daha çok "Poetika"yla bir bütünlük taşıyan üçüncü kitabın ise ilk ikisi kadar etkili ve etkileyici olduğunu söyleyemeyeceğim. Buna rağmen Aristoteles'in en anlaşılır ve en iyi eserlerinden biri olan"Retorik"in kesinlikle okunması gereken felsefe kitaplarından biri olduğuna kuşku yok.
28.04.2015
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
28.04.2015
İstanbul, Türkiye
Alp Turgut
http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...
May 1, 2019
Right off the bat, Im not going to say I understood it all. I felt like a fish out of water for a bit with Aristotles discussions on enthymemes and syllogism and so on (mostly because my previous experience with Classical Philosophy centred on choice passages relating to social history rather than on philosophy for philosophies sake). I had read parts of his discussions on emotions for a social history class, but the bulk of the book was new for me.
I went into it looking for a better understanding of what Rhetoric is and the best ways to practice it. Ultimately, I believe I got that. Aristotle is unbelievably insightful and I really have the desire to read more of his works to get a better picture of his skills of observation and thought.
I went into it looking for a better understanding of what Rhetoric is and the best ways to practice it. Ultimately, I believe I got that. Aristotle is unbelievably insightful and I really have the desire to read more of his works to get a better picture of his skills of observation and thought.
May 1, 2018
I think I finally figured out Aristotle! Before I read this, I didn't really connect with his thinking, but now I think I do.
The Art of Rhetoric is an astoundingly comprehensive guide to the complex and delicate skill of oration. It moves through three parts: firstly, Demonstration, secondly: Emotion and Character and thirdly: Universal Aspects, each one covering a different part of the skill.
Aristotle leaves no stone unturned in his search for what makes great oration great. As a result, there are so many examples in this book that by the end of it, it's hard not to want to write a speech. Aristotle provides enough material to write a thousand speeches.
It's important to note however, that this book is not light reading. In fact, it doesn't even really ask to be read at all. Aristotle is famously dry, but Rhetoric really takes the biscuit on dryness. There are many arid deserts, both on, and indeed beyond, earth that are less dry than this book. What it really demands is not reading - but study.
Going through this book cover to cover was enlightening in many ways, and definitely gave me a strong appreciation for Aristotle's thinking, but it never seemed like this was the way it was meant to be read. Rhetoric is more of a handbook (or maybe even a textbook) for orators.
The Art of Rhetoric is an astoundingly comprehensive guide to the complex and delicate skill of oration. It moves through three parts: firstly, Demonstration, secondly: Emotion and Character and thirdly: Universal Aspects, each one covering a different part of the skill.
Aristotle leaves no stone unturned in his search for what makes great oration great. As a result, there are so many examples in this book that by the end of it, it's hard not to want to write a speech. Aristotle provides enough material to write a thousand speeches.
It's important to note however, that this book is not light reading. In fact, it doesn't even really ask to be read at all. Aristotle is famously dry, but Rhetoric really takes the biscuit on dryness. There are many arid deserts, both on, and indeed beyond, earth that are less dry than this book. What it really demands is not reading - but study.
Going through this book cover to cover was enlightening in many ways, and definitely gave me a strong appreciation for Aristotle's thinking, but it never seemed like this was the way it was meant to be read. Rhetoric is more of a handbook (or maybe even a textbook) for orators.
December 14, 2019
این کتاب در اواسط قرن چهارم توسط ارسطو نوشته می شود. از نقاط قوت کتاب می توان به بررسی و تحقیق آن حتی در عصر حاضر اشاره کرد. این کتاب در بردارنده ی مطالبی راجع به فلسفه، حکمت، تاریخ، ادبیات و... است که بیانگر نگاه جامع و دقیق ارسطو نسبت به مسائل می باشد.از نگاه ارسطو،"خطابه" ازجمله فنونی است که می توان از آن در دو جهت متضاد خیر و شر استفاده کرد. ارسطو از ایسوکراتس یکی از معروفترین معلمان خطابه زیاد یاد می کند. ارسطو به یقین گفته های وی را خوانده بود؛ اما رابطه بین این دو چندان رابطه ی دوستانه ای نبوده به گونه ای که فن خطابه بعد از آن ها به دو نوع: 1.ارسطویی که مبتنی بر عقل و منطق است و 2. روش ایسوکراتسی که مبتنی بر زیبایی سبک و ساختار ادبی است، تقسیم می گردد.
از دید ارسطوه، خطابه آمیزهای است از عناصر جدلی و سیاسی و اخلاقی. روشی است مانند جدل که ضرورتاً هیچ موضوعی از آن خود ندارد؛ ولی تا اندازهای فنی عملی است مشتق از اخلاق و سیاست.
از دید ارسطوه، خطابه آمیزهای است از عناصر جدلی و سیاسی و اخلاقی. روشی است مانند جدل که ضرورتاً هیچ موضوعی از آن خود ندارد؛ ولی تا اندازهای فنی عملی است مشتق از اخلاق و سیاست.
December 31, 2023
In the Art of Rhetoric Aristotle does more than it seems possible given the length of the book. In under 160 pages he provides a comprehensive description of virtually all components of effective, persuasive, logical, and stylish communication. Even this description is too limiting. He captures the essence of knowledge, how it can be tested and known, how it is best relayed to others, and how one should go about using rhetoric, which he treats as a counterpart of dialectic. Fundamentally it is about forming and defending good arguments, challenging and understanding the bad ones, and presenting a case that is not only factually true but composed in a way to convince an audience without spectacle, trickery, or manipulation. His characterization of rhetoric as an art seems apt, considering the forms it takes and the many dimensions of it that can be practiced and mastered and executed with varying degrees of success.
Because of everything that goes into this art, it is only the third and final part of the book that directly discusses the formulation and application of rhetoric - in poetry, in political speeches, in courts, in legislation, in dialogue, in epics. Parts one and two lay the ground work. Logic, inductive and deductive arguments, proofs, probability, goals, ethics. These are some of the critical parts of rhetoric, and Aristotle makes good use of examples and abstractions when explaining the role of each. Even more basic elements are important for the underlying philosophical substance: understanding of pleasure, expediency, virtue and vice, justice and injustice, praise and blame, reasons for doing wrong, the character of criminals. These items are explored in the first section.
The second section focuses on “the materials out of which a speaker has to construct his attempts to persuade or dissuade, to praise or blame, and to prosecute or defend”. Here we delve into the causes of anger and its opposite, the qualities of gentleness, what qualities people look for in friends, how fear operates and what events might cause it, shame and likewise its many faces, gratitude and pity and resentment and emulation and envy and character and luck and age and wealth and power and judgment. Proofs are revisited in the context of these themes, and how speech might be designed to use these ideas effectively. Again, many examples from Greek tragedy and epics and philosophy help him articulate his thoughts.
By this point Aristotle has given us a thorough look at many parts of philosophy and human nature and has dissected the very essence of intellectual existence. Without even connecting his examinations to the uses of language he has given us more than many philosophers offer in books four times the length. Part three sees his introduction of the intricate uses of language and speech, tying together everything previously discussed into a whole picture. Here he gives treatments of lucidity, metaphors and similes, novelty and artificiality, clever interplay between rhythm and turns of phrase, how one might avoid frigidity of language and instead favor good style by avoiding ambiguity, having fluency in the language, and giving language weight through description instead of dependence on cliches or common phrases. Expressing emotion and character, shaping the language to the purpose of the writing (whether prose or poetry or persuasion), employing analogy to give a concept fullness and depth, and using wit artfully.
The differences between Ancient Greek and modern English make some small part of Aristotle’s analysis mere historical artifacts rather than useful insight, but the majority of what is here has not aged in over two thousand years. In fact, most of this has become standard practice for writers and speakers across the world because the points Aristotle put into writing have proven themselves to be as enduring as any idea can be. While we may not be conscious of the heritage or development of our ideas on good thinking and good speaking, the Art of Rhetoric has long been a concise and yet expansive study of these ideas. I know of no place else that they have been so eloquently and expertly studied in a systematic manner.
Because of everything that goes into this art, it is only the third and final part of the book that directly discusses the formulation and application of rhetoric - in poetry, in political speeches, in courts, in legislation, in dialogue, in epics. Parts one and two lay the ground work. Logic, inductive and deductive arguments, proofs, probability, goals, ethics. These are some of the critical parts of rhetoric, and Aristotle makes good use of examples and abstractions when explaining the role of each. Even more basic elements are important for the underlying philosophical substance: understanding of pleasure, expediency, virtue and vice, justice and injustice, praise and blame, reasons for doing wrong, the character of criminals. These items are explored in the first section.
The second section focuses on “the materials out of which a speaker has to construct his attempts to persuade or dissuade, to praise or blame, and to prosecute or defend”. Here we delve into the causes of anger and its opposite, the qualities of gentleness, what qualities people look for in friends, how fear operates and what events might cause it, shame and likewise its many faces, gratitude and pity and resentment and emulation and envy and character and luck and age and wealth and power and judgment. Proofs are revisited in the context of these themes, and how speech might be designed to use these ideas effectively. Again, many examples from Greek tragedy and epics and philosophy help him articulate his thoughts.
By this point Aristotle has given us a thorough look at many parts of philosophy and human nature and has dissected the very essence of intellectual existence. Without even connecting his examinations to the uses of language he has given us more than many philosophers offer in books four times the length. Part three sees his introduction of the intricate uses of language and speech, tying together everything previously discussed into a whole picture. Here he gives treatments of lucidity, metaphors and similes, novelty and artificiality, clever interplay between rhythm and turns of phrase, how one might avoid frigidity of language and instead favor good style by avoiding ambiguity, having fluency in the language, and giving language weight through description instead of dependence on cliches or common phrases. Expressing emotion and character, shaping the language to the purpose of the writing (whether prose or poetry or persuasion), employing analogy to give a concept fullness and depth, and using wit artfully.
The differences between Ancient Greek and modern English make some small part of Aristotle’s analysis mere historical artifacts rather than useful insight, but the majority of what is here has not aged in over two thousand years. In fact, most of this has become standard practice for writers and speakers across the world because the points Aristotle put into writing have proven themselves to be as enduring as any idea can be. While we may not be conscious of the heritage or development of our ideas on good thinking and good speaking, the Art of Rhetoric has long been a concise and yet expansive study of these ideas. I know of no place else that they have been so eloquently and expertly studied in a systematic manner.
January 29, 2012
You may never have read anything by Aristotle; but if you've ever taken a college writing course, you've had him as your teacher. The Art of Rhetoric did so much to define how subsequent generations, and civilizations, regarded the task of crafting persuasive language that it can truly be regarded as a founding text. Methodically, Aristotle sets forth his sense of how the writer's handling of character and emotion contributes to success in rhetorical terms. His insights regarding style and composition, written for a Greek audience of the 4th century B.C., are surprisingly relevant for people writing in English in the 21st century A.D. Readers sometimes find Aristotle's list-heavy style dry; unlike Plato, he does not present philosophical ideas in the form of a dialogue between characters. But his insights on rhetoric still do much to shape the way in which composition courses are taught at universities and colleges worldwide.
June 30, 2021
This was about as exciting as reading through a dictionary. But there might be some truth to this, because I think Rhetoric would make a great handbook or guide to someone interested in countering their opponents’ arguments with rhetoric. I am imagining something like a dictionary, with the opponent’s argument stated in bold, and Aristotle’s advice on how to respond stated under that entry. As an exercise in reading from cover to cover, however, this book is frustrating, though occasionally insightful. So I will present a review that is as fragmented and unreadable as Rhetoric itself, but hopefully also a little insightful.
For myself, I believe in Socrates’ privileging of philosophy over rhetoric in the Phaedrus. So I was probably not the target audience for this book. But I can still note that the book is weakened by the pointless digressions into defining qualities like the good, etc. which Aristotle already defines in much better ways in Ethics and Politics. This really takes away from the quality of this book.
But even Aristotle recognises that rhetoric can be wrongful and misleading at times. He chooses to neutrally blame this on the “quality” of the listeners, thus saving the rhetorician from all blame.
This book is interesting from a legal perspective, because Aristotle seems to believe in some form of legal formalism —
Now, it is of great moment that well-drawn laws should themselves define all the points they possibly can and leave as few as may be to the decision of the judges
But later he upholds a Natural Law Theory perspective (after all, Classical Natural Law Theory was put forward by Aquinas who studied Aristotle in depth)—
Universal law is the law of nature. For there really is, as everyone to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is common to all, even to those who have no association or covenant with each other.
In fact, I can see much of his language, like the definitions of “voluntariness” and “knowledge”, reflected in the Indian Penal Code. This is likely, considering that Macaulay who drafted the Code was a very well-read individual with knowledge of the ancient Greeks.
Aristotle does, however, conflict with Macaulay by making adultery a “private” wrong (a wrong against some definite person — obviously the husband as per Aristotle). Not sure if I’m reading him correctly, but a private wrong is also not a crime, as crimes must be public wrongs. It is unlikely that Aristotle decriminalised adultery, but his passage does read that way if we take into account the private vs public wrongs aspect of criminal theory.
Another interesting aspect is the equation of inductive reasoning with examples, and of deductive reasoning with enthymemes (a word I had to look up within the first 3 pages of this book).
Aristotle and the pursuit of happiness —
It may be said that every individual man and all men in common aim at a certain end which determines what they choose and what they avoid. This end, to sum it up briefly, is happiness and its constituents.
In another paragraph, while discussing the excellences of humans, Aristotle places “self-command” as one of the excellences that women can possess. This seems to conflict with his popular image as a traditionalist-misogynist, at least in comparison to Plato, who was more progressive on the question of gender equality.
However, in many of his sentences, I can’t help but feel like he is just plain wrong. For example, he writes —
All such good things as excite envy are, as a class, the outcome of good luck.
This assumes that merited things cannot excite envy in others. I think they can. If someone works harder than us and becomes more successful, we can still feel envious towards them (though if only through our own ignorance). Later, he writes —
That which is praised is good, since no one praises what is not good.
This is laughably wrong and goes against the entire philosophical objective of finding the unpopular moral good and reeducating citizens of said good. Yet again, he writes —
Thus, if the tallest man is taller than the tallest women, then men in general are taller than women.
Aristotle thinks that this is a deduction. I fail to see how this can be valid. The difference in height of the extremes cannot lead to a “general” deduction for the mean.
Excellence is greater than non-excellence, badness than non-badness; for excellence, goodness and badness are ends, which the mere absence of them cannot be.
Interesting perspective, but I don’t understand how badness can ever be better than non-badness — and how is non-badness different from good? If non-badness connotes neutrality, neutrality is still better than badness, whether or not it is an “end” in itself (whatever that means).
Aristotle’s definition of pleasure contradicts the first noble truth, something that I also noted in his De Anima—
We may lay it down that pleasure is a movement, a movement by which the soul as a whole is consciously brought into its normal state of being; and that pain is the opposite.
In this paragraph, he makes “pleasure” the default mode of human experience. The Buddha instead makes suffering the default position. Could this be like the glass half-full or half-empty problem? I don’t think so, because the Buddha takes a more nuanced view of suffering as feeling lack, desire, incompleteness, etc.
For myself, I believe in Socrates’ privileging of philosophy over rhetoric in the Phaedrus. So I was probably not the target audience for this book. But I can still note that the book is weakened by the pointless digressions into defining qualities like the good, etc. which Aristotle already defines in much better ways in Ethics and Politics. This really takes away from the quality of this book.
But even Aristotle recognises that rhetoric can be wrongful and misleading at times. He chooses to neutrally blame this on the “quality” of the listeners, thus saving the rhetorician from all blame.
This book is interesting from a legal perspective, because Aristotle seems to believe in some form of legal formalism —
Now, it is of great moment that well-drawn laws should themselves define all the points they possibly can and leave as few as may be to the decision of the judges
But later he upholds a Natural Law Theory perspective (after all, Classical Natural Law Theory was put forward by Aquinas who studied Aristotle in depth)—
Universal law is the law of nature. For there really is, as everyone to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is common to all, even to those who have no association or covenant with each other.
In fact, I can see much of his language, like the definitions of “voluntariness” and “knowledge”, reflected in the Indian Penal Code. This is likely, considering that Macaulay who drafted the Code was a very well-read individual with knowledge of the ancient Greeks.
Aristotle does, however, conflict with Macaulay by making adultery a “private” wrong (a wrong against some definite person — obviously the husband as per Aristotle). Not sure if I’m reading him correctly, but a private wrong is also not a crime, as crimes must be public wrongs. It is unlikely that Aristotle decriminalised adultery, but his passage does read that way if we take into account the private vs public wrongs aspect of criminal theory.
Another interesting aspect is the equation of inductive reasoning with examples, and of deductive reasoning with enthymemes (a word I had to look up within the first 3 pages of this book).
Aristotle and the pursuit of happiness —
It may be said that every individual man and all men in common aim at a certain end which determines what they choose and what they avoid. This end, to sum it up briefly, is happiness and its constituents.
In another paragraph, while discussing the excellences of humans, Aristotle places “self-command” as one of the excellences that women can possess. This seems to conflict with his popular image as a traditionalist-misogynist, at least in comparison to Plato, who was more progressive on the question of gender equality.
However, in many of his sentences, I can’t help but feel like he is just plain wrong. For example, he writes —
All such good things as excite envy are, as a class, the outcome of good luck.
This assumes that merited things cannot excite envy in others. I think they can. If someone works harder than us and becomes more successful, we can still feel envious towards them (though if only through our own ignorance). Later, he writes —
That which is praised is good, since no one praises what is not good.
This is laughably wrong and goes against the entire philosophical objective of finding the unpopular moral good and reeducating citizens of said good. Yet again, he writes —
Thus, if the tallest man is taller than the tallest women, then men in general are taller than women.
Aristotle thinks that this is a deduction. I fail to see how this can be valid. The difference in height of the extremes cannot lead to a “general” deduction for the mean.
Excellence is greater than non-excellence, badness than non-badness; for excellence, goodness and badness are ends, which the mere absence of them cannot be.
Interesting perspective, but I don’t understand how badness can ever be better than non-badness — and how is non-badness different from good? If non-badness connotes neutrality, neutrality is still better than badness, whether or not it is an “end” in itself (whatever that means).
Aristotle’s definition of pleasure contradicts the first noble truth, something that I also noted in his De Anima—
We may lay it down that pleasure is a movement, a movement by which the soul as a whole is consciously brought into its normal state of being; and that pain is the opposite.
In this paragraph, he makes “pleasure” the default mode of human experience. The Buddha instead makes suffering the default position. Could this be like the glass half-full or half-empty problem? I don’t think so, because the Buddha takes a more nuanced view of suffering as feeling lack, desire, incompleteness, etc.
November 17, 2013
The first book of Aristotle’s highly taxonomical Rhetoric opens with a parsing of dialectic and rhetoric. He sets up the latter as an art of persuasion related to but nevertheless distinguishable from the former. After exploring the usefulness of syllogisms and enthymemes for both arts, Aristotle sets out his three basic categories of rhetorical discourse: deliberative, judicial (or forensic), and epideictic. He spends the rest of the first book exploring topics (related to the Greek topos, for place) useful for finding and constructing arguments in each of the three categories. The second book is generally focused on pathos, ethos, and logos, with Aristotle cataloging the various ways rhetors can make use of emotion, character, and reason as means of persuasion. He works through emotions first, explaining how various emotions can be useful to rhetors as well as characterizing the states of minds of those feeling particular emotions. He then discusses ethos, exploring the character of various audiences (young versus old, for instance) and how a speaker might thus adapt a speech based on a particular audience’s character. Lastly, he delineates varieties of logical argument: examples, maxims, enthymemes, and topoi. The final book deals with lexis, somewhat synonymous with “style,” and taxis, which approximates “arrangement.” Aristotle thus considers how various stylistic strategies such as energeia (which George Kennedy translates as “bringing-before-the-eyes”) and metaphor can be used to enhance a discourse’s persuasiveness depending on its classification, then breaks down the parts of arguments: the prooemion, the narration, the proof, the interrogation of the opposition, and the epilogue.
Kennedy's edition also includes a translation of Gorgias' "Encomium of Helen." In this encomium, Gorgias sets out to “refute those who rebuke Helen … whose ill-omened name has become a memorial of disasters. I wish, by giving logic to language, to free the accused of blame and to show that her critics are lying and to demonstrate the truth and to put an end to ignorance” (2). After narrating Helen’s history and parentage, Gorgias argues that “either by fate’s will and gods’ wishes and necessity’s decrees she did what she did or by force reduced or by words seduced or by love induced” (6). He claims that Helen is blameless if fate or force were to blame, as “by nature the stronger force is not prevented by the weaker” and Helen, the “weaker” in this case, cannot be blamed for fate or force’s irresistibility. “But if speech (logos) persuaded her,” Gorgias argues, it is still not difficult to exonerate Helen. For speech, he claims, “is a powerful lord that with the smallest and most invisible body accomplishes most godlike works” (8). Because “it is easy neither to remember the past nor to consider the present nor to predict the future … on most subjects most people take opinion as counselor to the soul” (11). “What is there,” then, to prevent young Helen from being “carried off by speech just as if constrained by force? Her mind was swept away by persuasion” (12). Speech is as strong as necessity, and “[t]he power of speech has the same effect on the condition of the soul as the application of drugs to the state of bodies”: “some instill courage, some drug and bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion” (14). After setting up love as a similarly irresistible force, Gorgias concludes, “By speech I have removed disgrace from a woman.... I wished to write a speech that would be Helen’s encomion and my own paignion”--an amusement or plaything (20).
Kennedy's edition also includes a translation of Gorgias' "Encomium of Helen." In this encomium, Gorgias sets out to “refute those who rebuke Helen … whose ill-omened name has become a memorial of disasters. I wish, by giving logic to language, to free the accused of blame and to show that her critics are lying and to demonstrate the truth and to put an end to ignorance” (2). After narrating Helen’s history and parentage, Gorgias argues that “either by fate’s will and gods’ wishes and necessity’s decrees she did what she did or by force reduced or by words seduced or by love induced” (6). He claims that Helen is blameless if fate or force were to blame, as “by nature the stronger force is not prevented by the weaker” and Helen, the “weaker” in this case, cannot be blamed for fate or force’s irresistibility. “But if speech (logos) persuaded her,” Gorgias argues, it is still not difficult to exonerate Helen. For speech, he claims, “is a powerful lord that with the smallest and most invisible body accomplishes most godlike works” (8). Because “it is easy neither to remember the past nor to consider the present nor to predict the future … on most subjects most people take opinion as counselor to the soul” (11). “What is there,” then, to prevent young Helen from being “carried off by speech just as if constrained by force? Her mind was swept away by persuasion” (12). Speech is as strong as necessity, and “[t]he power of speech has the same effect on the condition of the soul as the application of drugs to the state of bodies”: “some instill courage, some drug and bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion” (14). After setting up love as a similarly irresistible force, Gorgias concludes, “By speech I have removed disgrace from a woman.... I wished to write a speech that would be Helen’s encomion and my own paignion”--an amusement or plaything (20).
September 12, 2023
I believe the original thinkers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates are worthy of reading. However, much of their early work is quite funny to read today. You see, they make a habit of saying obvious things that any person should know, but they happened to just be the first in recorded history to teach these things. They shaped society forever, but there have been far better thinkers since then. Don't expect anything mind-blowing when reading this book.
Aristotle: Everyone, please gather round and hear my words!
*The crowd gathers*
Aristotle: Get this! If you are nice to people . . . there is a good chance . . . that they might also be nice to you in return.
*The crowd gasps in unison*
Aristotle: Oh, I'm not finished. Perhaps some of you are wondering what true friendship is. I will grant you with this knowledge. True friends treat you well . . . while bad friends . . . treat you poorly. (This is nearly word for word in one of the chapters. I laughed very hard)
*The crowd gasps even louder. Someone faints*
Aristotle: Also, never forget! Good people . . . do good things. And bad people . . .
*The crowd leans in. Not a sound can be heard among them*
Aristotle: . . . do bad things.
*The crowd erupts into glorious cheers, chanting Aristotle's name*
This is basically this book. I am of the opinion that anyone in the modern day who quotes Aristotle often is just trying to sound smart to people who don't read.
Aristotle: Everyone, please gather round and hear my words!
*The crowd gathers*
Aristotle: Get this! If you are nice to people . . . there is a good chance . . . that they might also be nice to you in return.
*The crowd gasps in unison*
Aristotle: Oh, I'm not finished. Perhaps some of you are wondering what true friendship is. I will grant you with this knowledge. True friends treat you well . . . while bad friends . . . treat you poorly. (This is nearly word for word in one of the chapters. I laughed very hard)
*The crowd gasps even louder. Someone faints*
Aristotle: Also, never forget! Good people . . . do good things. And bad people . . .
*The crowd leans in. Not a sound can be heard among them*
Aristotle: . . . do bad things.
*The crowd erupts into glorious cheers, chanting Aristotle's name*
This is basically this book. I am of the opinion that anyone in the modern day who quotes Aristotle often is just trying to sound smart to people who don't read.
March 4, 2021
Ari Çokona çevirisinden okunması tavsiye olunur...
December 12, 2018
The only rhetoric textbook a classical school should ever need (I exaggerate slightly... but not much). Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric has everything. And it's all brilliant. I've been using this (Book I particularly) as my 11th grade writing curriculum this year, and it's amazing. This translation (Waterfield) in particular is much easier for my students to grasp than other translations out there, and it doesn't take much to turn his advice here into a series of really practical writing assignments.
Thousands of years after its publication, it still may be the best work on rhetoric out there. I learned a lot reading through this and will be heavily using this moving forward whenever I teach high school Rhetoric. A++ work.
Rating: 4.5-5 Stars (Extremely Good).
Thousands of years after its publication, it still may be the best work on rhetoric out there. I learned a lot reading through this and will be heavily using this moving forward whenever I teach high school Rhetoric. A++ work.
Rating: 4.5-5 Stars (Extremely Good).
December 30, 2017
[Warning: Translation disaster]
Çeviri (Mehmet Dogan, YKY) çok fena. Eyvah eyvah. Zaten ingiliççeden, neden bilmiyorum. Hayir yani neden bu kadar kötü bi çeviriyle Aristo okunmak zorunda kalinmis ki? Bu yüzden 1. Yoksa ne haddime canim Üstâd Aristû'ya bu puani vermek.
Bunun disinda, bilhassa ikinci bölüm çok önemli. Çok detayli bir duygular epistemolojisi. De Anima ve etik kitaplarindaki duygular ve hisler nazariyelerine paralel okumalar yapilabilir. Hatta daha öteye geçilerek Platon'la, Cicero ve Seneca'yla, Descartes'in ve Spinoza'nin hisler, duygular ve tutkular üzerine teorileriyle karsilastirmali okumalar yapilabilir.
Çeviri (Mehmet Dogan, YKY) çok fena. Eyvah eyvah. Zaten ingiliççeden, neden bilmiyorum. Hayir yani neden bu kadar kötü bi çeviriyle Aristo okunmak zorunda kalinmis ki? Bu yüzden 1. Yoksa ne haddime canim Üstâd Aristû'ya bu puani vermek.
Bunun disinda, bilhassa ikinci bölüm çok önemli. Çok detayli bir duygular epistemolojisi. De Anima ve etik kitaplarindaki duygular ve hisler nazariyelerine paralel okumalar yapilabilir. Hatta daha öteye geçilerek Platon'la, Cicero ve Seneca'yla, Descartes'in ve Spinoza'nin hisler, duygular ve tutkular üzerine teorileriyle karsilastirmali okumalar yapilabilir.
March 14, 2014
aristocrats must talk pretty to keep the peasants in line.
August 24, 2017
Don't be put off by the rating. Worth a read.
November 28, 2022
On public speaking in politics, law, eulogies. Aristotle suggests persuasiveness comes from arguments, emotions, credibility, and from style.
May 29, 2021
I do not think that I understood this text particularly well. I am writing this review so that I can refer to it at later after I have read either more works by Aristotle or more commentaries on him. Rather than read this review, I suggest other GR members consult the very solid English language article on Aristotle's Rhetoric which can be found on the Wikipedia web site. (The French Wikipedia article only increased my confusion.)
Rhetoric in the view of Aristotle is the set of best practices that one should learn in order to be successful at persuading an audience that will either read or listen to your argument. It is not a science. The rhetorician should simply use the logic and techniques that work best.
In its simplest form, Aristotle's thesis is that persuasion is composed of three components:
-1- solid logic (logos) - the effective use of the dialectic and the syllogism. In particular, Aristotle places emphasis on the enthymeme which is a syllogism lacks a premise but which the listener will provide;
-2- knowing the audience (pathos) - the rhetorician must understand human psychology and tailor his or her argument to the specific audience. There must be a forceful appeal to the emotions of the listener;
-3- good style (ethos) - well chosen vocabulary, effective use of metaphors, appropriate sentence structure.
I had the impression that Aristotle believed that pathos was the most important; in other words, he seemed to feel that the rhetorician was likely to win if he or she understood the audience and made the right appeal to its emotions.
My translator Jules Barthélémy Saint-Hilaire writing in the 1860's under the regime of Napoléon III argued that rhetoric only works in a democratic society such as senatorial Rome or fifth-century Athens. In his view, rhetoric in his age was flourishing only in England.
Saint-Hilaire would likely also agree with the point made by Gustave LeBon ("The Psychology of Crowds") in the 20 th century that demagogic oratory does not rely on rhetoric but is based rather on telling the "big lie."
Rhetoric in the view of Aristotle is the set of best practices that one should learn in order to be successful at persuading an audience that will either read or listen to your argument. It is not a science. The rhetorician should simply use the logic and techniques that work best.
In its simplest form, Aristotle's thesis is that persuasion is composed of three components:
-1- solid logic (logos) - the effective use of the dialectic and the syllogism. In particular, Aristotle places emphasis on the enthymeme which is a syllogism lacks a premise but which the listener will provide;
-2- knowing the audience (pathos) - the rhetorician must understand human psychology and tailor his or her argument to the specific audience. There must be a forceful appeal to the emotions of the listener;
-3- good style (ethos) - well chosen vocabulary, effective use of metaphors, appropriate sentence structure.
I had the impression that Aristotle believed that pathos was the most important; in other words, he seemed to feel that the rhetorician was likely to win if he or she understood the audience and made the right appeal to its emotions.
My translator Jules Barthélémy Saint-Hilaire writing in the 1860's under the regime of Napoléon III argued that rhetoric only works in a democratic society such as senatorial Rome or fifth-century Athens. In his view, rhetoric in his age was flourishing only in England.
Saint-Hilaire would likely also agree with the point made by Gustave LeBon ("The Psychology of Crowds") in the 20 th century that demagogic oratory does not rely on rhetoric but is based rather on telling the "big lie."
Read
August 20, 2021Aristoteles ökänt drönande stil åsido kändes det här som ett verk mer uppenbart ej menat för publikation jämfört med Den Nikomachiska Etiken som jag just läst innan. Bitvis knappt sammanhängande. Känns inte speciellt meningsfullt att betygsätta men fick inte speciellt mycket ur den. Lite intressant med den rudimentära psykologiska diskussionen kring vad som ger upphov till olika känslor. Bra inledningar från översättaren Johanna Akujärvi (även noter) och Janne Lindqvist Grinde hjälpte att ta till sig texten.
January 3, 2021
Aristotle is such a king
January 21, 2021
Soovitan kõigile. Kasulikku ja head leiab siit iga eriala inimene.
December 28, 2022
i could’ve written this better than he did. very tedious but some good points that almost made reading it worth it.
February 16, 2023
Salah satu ciri filsafat adalah membahas suatu subjek bahasan secara mendalam dan kaya akan makna. Tak terkecuali di buku Retorika karangan Aristoteles ini. Secara garis besar, retorika adalah sebuah seni berbicara atau sebuah kemampuan untuk menemukan alat-alat persuasi dari setiap kondisi yang sedang dihadapi dalam berargumentasi. Retorika bisa digunakan saat pidato, debat, interogasi, dan hal semacamnya. Dalam hal seni berbicara ini, Aristoteles menjabarkannya secara runtut. Dimulai dari persiapan, saat pelaksanaan berargumentasi, sampai kesimpulan yang kita jabarkan, bahkan cara untuk menangkal argumentasi-argumentasi lawan. Secara umum, retorika yang dijelaskan di buku ini berkutat pada aspek etika, logika, mirip juga dengan dialektika, dan masuk ke ranah estetika karena retorika bagian dari seni.
Aristoteles menjelaskan secara rinci terkait cara beretorika yang baik dan benar agar mampu "memenangkan" sebuah forum. Terlepas dari orang yang beretorika tersebut benar atau salah. Bisa jadi ada orang yang salah, tetapi dengan retorikanya seakan-akan dia terlihat benar; ia bisa memanipulasi pendengar, membangkitkan emosi audiens, dan mengaburkan fakta yang ada. Di sisi lain, untuk menjelaskan suatu kebenaran, retorika sangatlah dibutuhkan juga. Pasalnya dengan kemampuan beretorika, suatu kebenaran akan terdengar hingga mampu membekas ke jiwa dan mampu mengungkap kebohongan-kebohongan dari lawan bicara. Seperti pisau bermata dua, retorika adalah ilmu yang bisa bermanfaat, juga bisa membahayakan. Tergantung dari siapa yang menguasai retorika tersebut.
Bagi seseorang yang menyukai bahasa, sastra, dan ingin mengaplikasikan kemampuan berbahasa ke dalam sebuah argumentasi, buku ini lumayan bisa dijadikan sebagai rekomendasi. Hal-hal kebahasaan dan alat-alat di dalamnya pun tak terlewat untuk dibahas. Dimulai dari Entimem yg serupa dengan silogisme, Maxim, Metafora, Simile, dan hal-hal kebahasaan lainnya dijelaskan dengan contoh kalimatnya. Namun sayangnya, saya rasa contoh kalimat yang ada aganya kurang relevan dengan kondisi saat ini karena contoh kalimat yang diberikan adalah contoh dari kondisi di Yunani Kuno 😅 (jadi kita harus berkreasi untuk menyesuaikan contohnya dengan kondisi kita saat ini).
Hal lain yang saya suka dalam buku ini adalah ketika Aristoteles menjelaskan penggunaan retorika ini secara mendalamnya. Bahkan saat menghadapi persoalan seperti perselisihan di pengadilan yang bermula dari permusuhan misalnya. Di buku ini dijelaskan secara radikal apa itu permusuhan, pertemanan, hal penyebabnya, ciri-cirinya dan aspek lainnya. Dengan mengetahui suatu bahasan secara mendalam, aganya kita bisa lebih memcerna suatu persoalan, cara menanganinya, dan cara bersrgumentasi terhadapnya.
Satu nasihat bagi yang ingin membaca buku ini adalah: luruskan niat. Karena seperti yang saya jelaskan. Retorika bisa bermanfaat atau membahayakan. Tergantung siapa yang menguasainya dan untuk apa menggunakannya.
Aristoteles menjelaskan secara rinci terkait cara beretorika yang baik dan benar agar mampu "memenangkan" sebuah forum. Terlepas dari orang yang beretorika tersebut benar atau salah. Bisa jadi ada orang yang salah, tetapi dengan retorikanya seakan-akan dia terlihat benar; ia bisa memanipulasi pendengar, membangkitkan emosi audiens, dan mengaburkan fakta yang ada. Di sisi lain, untuk menjelaskan suatu kebenaran, retorika sangatlah dibutuhkan juga. Pasalnya dengan kemampuan beretorika, suatu kebenaran akan terdengar hingga mampu membekas ke jiwa dan mampu mengungkap kebohongan-kebohongan dari lawan bicara. Seperti pisau bermata dua, retorika adalah ilmu yang bisa bermanfaat, juga bisa membahayakan. Tergantung dari siapa yang menguasai retorika tersebut.
Bagi seseorang yang menyukai bahasa, sastra, dan ingin mengaplikasikan kemampuan berbahasa ke dalam sebuah argumentasi, buku ini lumayan bisa dijadikan sebagai rekomendasi. Hal-hal kebahasaan dan alat-alat di dalamnya pun tak terlewat untuk dibahas. Dimulai dari Entimem yg serupa dengan silogisme, Maxim, Metafora, Simile, dan hal-hal kebahasaan lainnya dijelaskan dengan contoh kalimatnya. Namun sayangnya, saya rasa contoh kalimat yang ada aganya kurang relevan dengan kondisi saat ini karena contoh kalimat yang diberikan adalah contoh dari kondisi di Yunani Kuno 😅 (jadi kita harus berkreasi untuk menyesuaikan contohnya dengan kondisi kita saat ini).
Hal lain yang saya suka dalam buku ini adalah ketika Aristoteles menjelaskan penggunaan retorika ini secara mendalamnya. Bahkan saat menghadapi persoalan seperti perselisihan di pengadilan yang bermula dari permusuhan misalnya. Di buku ini dijelaskan secara radikal apa itu permusuhan, pertemanan, hal penyebabnya, ciri-cirinya dan aspek lainnya. Dengan mengetahui suatu bahasan secara mendalam, aganya kita bisa lebih memcerna suatu persoalan, cara menanganinya, dan cara bersrgumentasi terhadapnya.
Satu nasihat bagi yang ingin membaca buku ini adalah: luruskan niat. Karena seperti yang saya jelaskan. Retorika bisa bermanfaat atau membahayakan. Tergantung siapa yang menguasainya dan untuk apa menggunakannya.
August 10, 2022
No sé cómo puntuar este libro. Creo que es una obra que hace falta leer más de una vez o, por lo menos, estar más experimentado en este tipo de lecturas. Es interesante leer algo tan primitivo porque cada frase importa. Y eso es lo que lo hace complejo. Después de 346 páginas de Aristóteles tengo la sensación de no haber aprendido mucho y de tener muchas dudas. Tal vez en unos meses volveré a él y podré puntuarle. De momento me quedo con sus referencias a la alta literatura de la época entremezclado con los chascarrillos populares de su pueblo.
Edit unos meses después
---------------------------------
Después de haber interiorizado un poco mejor las ideas del libro, me atrevo a mojarme las manos. Quizá una de las enseñanzas que más me gustaron es que Aristóteles muestra claramente que la Filosofía es un conocimiento segundo en lugar de uno primero. Todo el libro son referencias y citas a juicios y argumentaciones públicas de su época que le sirvieron para captar una idea de retórica y que luego elevó para hacer una teoría general de la misma. En ese sentido, se aprecia un análisis materialista en su texto.
La retórica es el arte de persuadir con el habla, del convencimiento de los otros teniendo en cuenta quién es el receptor y quién el emisor. Si la dialéctica se centra en llegar a conclusiones verdaderas a partir de premisas verdaderas, la retórica llega a conclusiones probablemente verdaderas a partir de premisas coherentes. Aristóteles entiende que un discurso literario produce más efecto por su expresión que por su contenido. En esta línea, defiende un tono natural en el discurso acorde al emisor, sin florituras innecesarias "que hagan sentir al público la misma sensación que cuando beben un vino mezclado."
En el camino explica tambi��n cómo hacer una buena argumentación, cómo refutar, cómo criticar, cómo generalizar y cómo particularizar. El uso de la metáfora, de la antítesis y del ejemplo. De este último dice que "el ejemplo ha de usarse para concluir, porque si se usan primero parecería que la argumentación es una inducción, y la inducción, salvo pocas excepciones, no es adecuada para la retórica. En cambio, si se utilizan después, sirven como testimonios, y el testigo es siempre digno de crédito."
Finalmente, reduce los tres tipos de discursos en relación con los tres tiempos verbales:
- Judicial/forense: al pasado, porque el juez habla sobre lo ocurrido.
- Deliberativo: al futuro, porque se delibera acerca de lo que va a suceder.
- Exhibición: al presente, porque se enseña lo que se puede ver, no lo que ya ocurrió ni lo que ocurrirá.
Seguiré con sus libros de política y quizá estaría bien leer Tópicos y Poética, ya que los cita varias veces en este libro.
Edit unos meses después
---------------------------------
Después de haber interiorizado un poco mejor las ideas del libro, me atrevo a mojarme las manos. Quizá una de las enseñanzas que más me gustaron es que Aristóteles muestra claramente que la Filosofía es un conocimiento segundo en lugar de uno primero. Todo el libro son referencias y citas a juicios y argumentaciones públicas de su época que le sirvieron para captar una idea de retórica y que luego elevó para hacer una teoría general de la misma. En ese sentido, se aprecia un análisis materialista en su texto.
La retórica es el arte de persuadir con el habla, del convencimiento de los otros teniendo en cuenta quién es el receptor y quién el emisor. Si la dialéctica se centra en llegar a conclusiones verdaderas a partir de premisas verdaderas, la retórica llega a conclusiones probablemente verdaderas a partir de premisas coherentes. Aristóteles entiende que un discurso literario produce más efecto por su expresión que por su contenido. En esta línea, defiende un tono natural en el discurso acorde al emisor, sin florituras innecesarias "que hagan sentir al público la misma sensación que cuando beben un vino mezclado."
En el camino explica tambi��n cómo hacer una buena argumentación, cómo refutar, cómo criticar, cómo generalizar y cómo particularizar. El uso de la metáfora, de la antítesis y del ejemplo. De este último dice que "el ejemplo ha de usarse para concluir, porque si se usan primero parecería que la argumentación es una inducción, y la inducción, salvo pocas excepciones, no es adecuada para la retórica. En cambio, si se utilizan después, sirven como testimonios, y el testigo es siempre digno de crédito."
Finalmente, reduce los tres tipos de discursos en relación con los tres tiempos verbales:
- Judicial/forense: al pasado, porque el juez habla sobre lo ocurrido.
- Deliberativo: al futuro, porque se delibera acerca de lo que va a suceder.
- Exhibición: al presente, porque se enseña lo que se puede ver, no lo que ya ocurrió ni lo que ocurrirá.
Seguiré con sus libros de política y quizá estaría bien leer Tópicos y Poética, ya que los cita varias veces en este libro.
May 27, 2023
Yeah this ain't it chief. Ari spends way too much of this defining such generalities as "anger" and "desire" (which can't be narrowly defined, especially in the annoying way which he does), and overall there's precious little in here which is of worth, especially in relation to the famous "ethos, logos, pathos" triad. Regardless, I'll dig out what little I found of note and comment on it.
The best part of the book easily came earliest in it when Aristotle explained that he wasn't here to persuade, but to explain how persuasion works; it also is especially important that he emphasized the morality of rhetoric, and how it should be used to uncover unfair and duplicitous arguments rather than deceive.
He briefly lays out the three rhetorical modes, and I was pleasantly surprised to see him uphold ethos as the most important: "on the contrary, moral character, so to say, constitutes the most effective means of proof." BUT, because there are three, it’s still important to be able to discern emotions, discern morality, and discern logic, otherwise if you leave any of these in the dust you won't be able to see when you or others are being manipulated with one of them.
The part that makes this work less applicable than I had hoped was how courtroom-centric it feels. Rather than discussing rhetoric in general, i.e. the skill of persuasive speech and by extension persuasion in the arts and elsewhere, he keeps things needlessly narrow and focused on judicial precedings. He focuses especially on the three kinds of rhetorical speeches: deliberative, forensic, and epideictic (which roughly translate to future-tense, past-tense, and present-tense).
Dipping into aesthetics, he argues for moderation and balance in form and function, which applies directly to speech:
Beauty varies with each age. In a young man, it consists in possessing a body capable of enduring all efforts, either of the racecourse or of bodily strength, while he himself is pleasant to look upon and a sheer delight. (In other words, beauty is a balance of form and function *glares at utilitarians*).
Excellence of stature consists in being superior to most men in height, depth, and breadth,
but in such proportion as not to render the movements of the body slower as the result of excess. (In other words, beauty contains no excess which impairs function *glares at bodybuilders who can't scratch their back*).
Lastly, I think his approach to fitness is quite healthy (get it haha): "for instance, exercise is only a means for the acquirement of a good constitution." Thus people who neglect it and people who worship it both miss the point.
Aristotle also interestingly talks of virtues of the soul and of the body: "Justice, courage, self-control, magnanimity, magnificence, and all other similar states of mind, for they are virtues of the soul. Health, beauty, and the like, for they are virtues of the body and produce many advantages;"
Sometimes, Ari says totally stupid shit, like tautological statements ("those things are greater evils, the punishment for which is greater") and obvious ad populum fallacies ("that which is chosen by all is better than that which is not; and that which the majority choose than that which the minority choose; for, as we have said, the good is that which all desire, and consequently a good is greater, the more it is desired"). It's frustrating to see interesting observations sandwiched between such stupidities. And I mean they're really stupid. Often he makes no qualifications, and then when he does it's a lazy qualification like "Now if you just flip everything I just said, you'll get all the negative arguments. Enough on that topic." Like no, you don't get to just copy the image, right click, invert colors; that's lazy and ugly, and often inaccurate.
I'm not really sure why, but Aristotle gets distracted and starts talking about the types of government at times, and sometimes what he says is merely quaint, sometimes it's surprisingly prescient, but mostly it feels out of place. Despite that, I do like how comfortable Aristotle feels with the various types of governments (democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, & monarchy), and it makes me wonder what is so deficient in us that we demonize those who would even flirt with a different kind of government. Liberal democracy is the only option, and it might not even be the best option. There are tradeoffs depending on whichever type you choose, and I think today's primary fallacy is the belief that any of them can be permanent. Americans commonly think that America can never fall, just as communists believe in their "yet-untried" utopian eschatology. It's all so strange to me.
Aristotle then inexplicably returns to mimetic art, making this statement (which echoes his Poetics):
Since it is pleasant to do good, it must also be pleasant for men to set their neighbors on their feet, and to supply their deficiencies. [23] And since learning and admiring are pleasant, all things connected with them must also be pleasant; for instance, a work of imitation, such as painting, sculpture, poetry, and all that is well imitated, even if the object of imitation is not pleasant; for it is not this that causes pleasure or the reverse, but the inference that the imitation and the object imitated are identical, so that the result is that we learn something.
Once again, we have a linkage of imitation and learning, tying education to the arts, which I think is useful. However, what isn't useful is such dismissive phrases as "Such are the motives of injustice." Like no, sir, you did not exhaust the motives of injustice, you didn't even scratch the surface. And if you somehow did cover all of them, your treatment was so superficial that it would be worthless. So I'm confused why he attempts to cover them at all, instead of directly treating his subject, i.e. rhetoric. I understand that he's trying to give background which may be helpful for those in a legal bind, but I don't think it's helpful. Either it's common sense or it's too specific, no in between.
Additionally, he is pretty bad at defining terms, such as "equitable;" many people today would be interested to hear what he says about this, but I re-read this section several times and still don't know what he means by it. THe closest I could get was this chunk:\
it is equitable to pardon human weaknesses, and to look, not to the law but to the legislator; not to the letter of the law but to the intention of the legislator; not to the action itself, but to the moral purpose; not to the part, but to the whole; not to what a man is now, but to what he has been, always or generally; to remember good rather than ill treatment, and benefits received rather than those conferred; to bear injury with patience; to be willing to appeal to the judgement of reason rather than to violence
But even then it doesn't make much sense in the context of the rest of the chapter. Whatever. As I mentioned at the start, he has some interesting things to say about Anger, but ultimately they're too broad to be more than passingly interesting:
Let us then define anger as a longing, accompanied by pain, for a real or apparent revenge for a real or apparent slight, affecting a man himself or one of his friends, when such a slight is undeserved. If this definition is correct, the angry man must always be angry with a particular individual （for instance, with Cleon, but not with men generally), and because this individual has done, or was on the point of doing, something against him or one of his friends; and lastly, anger is always accompanied by a certain pleasure, due to the hope of revenge to come. For it is pleasant to think that one will obtain what one aims at; now, no one aims at what is obviously impossible of attainment by him, and the angry man aims at what is possible for himself. Wherefore it has been well said of anger, that "Far sweeter than dripping honey down the throat it spreads in men's hearts"
This anger is related to the expectation for respect, which I guess has expanded to all people, i.e. everyone expects to be treated like a king or queen (thus the unbearable entitled whining of everyone of every stripe today, both right and left):
Now men think that they have a right to be highly esteemed by those who are inferior to them in birth, power, and virtue, and generally, in whatever similar respect a man is far superior to another; for example, the rich man to the poor man in the matter of money, the eloquent to the incompetent speaker in the matter of oratory, the governor to the governed, and the man who thinks himself worthy to rule to one who is only fit to be ruled.
The problem is that we don't live in an egalitarian world, despite our pretensions. We do view some as better than others, or more worthy than others, or more respectable than others; there's nothing wrong with this, it's unavoidable frankly (just like hierarchy in general), but the problem comes when we have an anemic, secular view of equality and respect rather than a theologically accurate version (equal before God, all have souls, have inherent human worth, are made in God's image, etc. etc. etc.).
Rather than merely negating anger, Aristotle does have a decent definition of love:
Let loving, then, be defined as wishing for anyone the things which we believe to be good, for his sake but not for our own, and procuring them for him as far as lies in our power. And those are friends who have the same ideas of good and bad, and love and hate the same persons.
And returning to anger, he makes a neat distinction between anger and hatred:
Anger has always an individual as its object, for instance Callias or Socrates, whereas hatred applies to classes; for instance, every one hates a thief or informer. Anger is curable by time, hatred not; the aim of anger is pain, of hatred evil; for the angry man wishes to see what happens;46 to one who hates it does not matter.
He goes in new tangents, making an important distinction between “traditional/old” and “natural/inevitable” (which lefties would love to see):
And since that which is old seems closely to resemble that which is natural, it follows that, if two parties have the same good, men are more indignant with the one who has recently acquired it and owes his prosperity to it; for the newly rich cause more annoyance than those who have long possessed or inherited wealth.
His characterization of youth also seems to ring quite true, and feels especially relevant to politically active people my age:
Interesting characterization of “youth”:
In their actions, they prefer the noble to the useful; their life is guided by their character92 rather than by calculation, for the latter aims at the useful, virtue at the noble. At this age more than any other they are fond of their friends and companions because they take pleasure in living in company and as yet judge nothing by expediency, not even their friends. All their errors are due to excess and vehemence and their neglect of the maxim of Chilon, for they do everything to excess, love, hate, and everything else. And they think they know everything, and confidently affirm it, and this is the cause of their excess in everything. If they do wrong, it is due to insolence, not to wickedness. And they are inclined to pity, because they think all men are virtuous and better than themselves; for they measure their neighbors by their own inoffensiveness, so that they think that they suffer undeservedly. And they are fond of laughter, and therefore witty; for wit is cultured insolence. Such then is the character of the young.
He goes on to define those in later life and then those in the "prime of their lives" (30-35) which he says ideally contain a balance of the idealism of youth and the utilitarianism of later life.
Once he's done with those myriad detours, he finally returns to talking about rhetoric near the end, and one of the refrains he repeats is “things in juxtaposition are always clearer to the audience.” he clarifies this in an elaboration near the end:
Refutative enthymemes are more popular than demonstrative, because, in all cases of refutation, it is clearer that a logical conclusion has been reached; for opposites are more noticeable when placed in juxtaposition. The refutation of the opponent is not a particular kind of proof; his arguments should be refuted partly by objection, partly by counter-syllogism.
In other words, juxtaposition (by the use of steelmanning and other tactics) makes the point all the more forceful and foregrounded. As James Hetfield said: "Without darkness there's no light." Aristotle spends a while talking about metaphors and similes, but there's not much of interest there other than metaphors being enigmas and that they "should also be derived from things that are beautiful...in its sound or sense."
I was pleasantly surprised to have stumbled over a story Hamza Yusuf told (I think in his video about "What has Happened to Poetry"), that some poet was offered enough money to sell his dignity and write a poem about a donkey (asses, implying that there's some things which should be below poets and artisans. I was also pleased to see him attacking adverbs and other unnecessary adornment (a la Stephen King), and I loved seeing him defend "exordia," or spoilers at the start of a play (which Nietzsche and other "spoiler-averse" modernists absolutely detest).
Lastly, I wanted to point out something which I mentioned in my recent re-review of Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death," specifically about the domains of oral and written communication:
When compared, the speeches of writers appear meagre in public debates, while those of the rhetoricians, however well delivered, are amateurish when read. The reason is that they are only suitable to public debates; hence speeches suited for delivery, when delivery is absent, do not fulfil their proper function and appear silly.
This does not mean that oral or written is superior or inferior to one another, but rather that they are strongest in their own domains. This is why Postman's critique falls short often, because he is so mired in the idea that the written word is superior, that he denigrates speeches when they're outside of speeches; in other words, he sets up his opponent to fail, then rejoices when they do. I'd like to do the same to him. Aristotle does it to himself, because he's really just not that persuasive, he veers too far from the subject and his few relevant points, though generally good, aren't enough to prop up his work (nor justify his reputation, at least to me). Bleh.
The best part of the book easily came earliest in it when Aristotle explained that he wasn't here to persuade, but to explain how persuasion works; it also is especially important that he emphasized the morality of rhetoric, and how it should be used to uncover unfair and duplicitous arguments rather than deceive.
He briefly lays out the three rhetorical modes, and I was pleasantly surprised to see him uphold ethos as the most important: "on the contrary, moral character, so to say, constitutes the most effective means of proof." BUT, because there are three, it’s still important to be able to discern emotions, discern morality, and discern logic, otherwise if you leave any of these in the dust you won't be able to see when you or others are being manipulated with one of them.
The part that makes this work less applicable than I had hoped was how courtroom-centric it feels. Rather than discussing rhetoric in general, i.e. the skill of persuasive speech and by extension persuasion in the arts and elsewhere, he keeps things needlessly narrow and focused on judicial precedings. He focuses especially on the three kinds of rhetorical speeches: deliberative, forensic, and epideictic (which roughly translate to future-tense, past-tense, and present-tense).
Dipping into aesthetics, he argues for moderation and balance in form and function, which applies directly to speech:
Beauty varies with each age. In a young man, it consists in possessing a body capable of enduring all efforts, either of the racecourse or of bodily strength, while he himself is pleasant to look upon and a sheer delight. (In other words, beauty is a balance of form and function *glares at utilitarians*).
Excellence of stature consists in being superior to most men in height, depth, and breadth,
but in such proportion as not to render the movements of the body slower as the result of excess. (In other words, beauty contains no excess which impairs function *glares at bodybuilders who can't scratch their back*).
Lastly, I think his approach to fitness is quite healthy (get it haha): "for instance, exercise is only a means for the acquirement of a good constitution." Thus people who neglect it and people who worship it both miss the point.
Aristotle also interestingly talks of virtues of the soul and of the body: "Justice, courage, self-control, magnanimity, magnificence, and all other similar states of mind, for they are virtues of the soul. Health, beauty, and the like, for they are virtues of the body and produce many advantages;"
Sometimes, Ari says totally stupid shit, like tautological statements ("those things are greater evils, the punishment for which is greater") and obvious ad populum fallacies ("that which is chosen by all is better than that which is not; and that which the majority choose than that which the minority choose; for, as we have said, the good is that which all desire, and consequently a good is greater, the more it is desired"). It's frustrating to see interesting observations sandwiched between such stupidities. And I mean they're really stupid. Often he makes no qualifications, and then when he does it's a lazy qualification like "Now if you just flip everything I just said, you'll get all the negative arguments. Enough on that topic." Like no, you don't get to just copy the image, right click, invert colors; that's lazy and ugly, and often inaccurate.
I'm not really sure why, but Aristotle gets distracted and starts talking about the types of government at times, and sometimes what he says is merely quaint, sometimes it's surprisingly prescient, but mostly it feels out of place. Despite that, I do like how comfortable Aristotle feels with the various types of governments (democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, & monarchy), and it makes me wonder what is so deficient in us that we demonize those who would even flirt with a different kind of government. Liberal democracy is the only option, and it might not even be the best option. There are tradeoffs depending on whichever type you choose, and I think today's primary fallacy is the belief that any of them can be permanent. Americans commonly think that America can never fall, just as communists believe in their "yet-untried" utopian eschatology. It's all so strange to me.
Aristotle then inexplicably returns to mimetic art, making this statement (which echoes his Poetics):
Since it is pleasant to do good, it must also be pleasant for men to set their neighbors on their feet, and to supply their deficiencies. [23] And since learning and admiring are pleasant, all things connected with them must also be pleasant; for instance, a work of imitation, such as painting, sculpture, poetry, and all that is well imitated, even if the object of imitation is not pleasant; for it is not this that causes pleasure or the reverse, but the inference that the imitation and the object imitated are identical, so that the result is that we learn something.
Once again, we have a linkage of imitation and learning, tying education to the arts, which I think is useful. However, what isn't useful is such dismissive phrases as "Such are the motives of injustice." Like no, sir, you did not exhaust the motives of injustice, you didn't even scratch the surface. And if you somehow did cover all of them, your treatment was so superficial that it would be worthless. So I'm confused why he attempts to cover them at all, instead of directly treating his subject, i.e. rhetoric. I understand that he's trying to give background which may be helpful for those in a legal bind, but I don't think it's helpful. Either it's common sense or it's too specific, no in between.
Additionally, he is pretty bad at defining terms, such as "equitable;" many people today would be interested to hear what he says about this, but I re-read this section several times and still don't know what he means by it. THe closest I could get was this chunk:\
it is equitable to pardon human weaknesses, and to look, not to the law but to the legislator; not to the letter of the law but to the intention of the legislator; not to the action itself, but to the moral purpose; not to the part, but to the whole; not to what a man is now, but to what he has been, always or generally; to remember good rather than ill treatment, and benefits received rather than those conferred; to bear injury with patience; to be willing to appeal to the judgement of reason rather than to violence
But even then it doesn't make much sense in the context of the rest of the chapter. Whatever. As I mentioned at the start, he has some interesting things to say about Anger, but ultimately they're too broad to be more than passingly interesting:
Let us then define anger as a longing, accompanied by pain, for a real or apparent revenge for a real or apparent slight, affecting a man himself or one of his friends, when such a slight is undeserved. If this definition is correct, the angry man must always be angry with a particular individual （for instance, with Cleon, but not with men generally), and because this individual has done, or was on the point of doing, something against him or one of his friends; and lastly, anger is always accompanied by a certain pleasure, due to the hope of revenge to come. For it is pleasant to think that one will obtain what one aims at; now, no one aims at what is obviously impossible of attainment by him, and the angry man aims at what is possible for himself. Wherefore it has been well said of anger, that "Far sweeter than dripping honey down the throat it spreads in men's hearts"
This anger is related to the expectation for respect, which I guess has expanded to all people, i.e. everyone expects to be treated like a king or queen (thus the unbearable entitled whining of everyone of every stripe today, both right and left):
Now men think that they have a right to be highly esteemed by those who are inferior to them in birth, power, and virtue, and generally, in whatever similar respect a man is far superior to another; for example, the rich man to the poor man in the matter of money, the eloquent to the incompetent speaker in the matter of oratory, the governor to the governed, and the man who thinks himself worthy to rule to one who is only fit to be ruled.
The problem is that we don't live in an egalitarian world, despite our pretensions. We do view some as better than others, or more worthy than others, or more respectable than others; there's nothing wrong with this, it's unavoidable frankly (just like hierarchy in general), but the problem comes when we have an anemic, secular view of equality and respect rather than a theologically accurate version (equal before God, all have souls, have inherent human worth, are made in God's image, etc. etc. etc.).
Rather than merely negating anger, Aristotle does have a decent definition of love:
Let loving, then, be defined as wishing for anyone the things which we believe to be good, for his sake but not for our own, and procuring them for him as far as lies in our power. And those are friends who have the same ideas of good and bad, and love and hate the same persons.
And returning to anger, he makes a neat distinction between anger and hatred:
Anger has always an individual as its object, for instance Callias or Socrates, whereas hatred applies to classes; for instance, every one hates a thief or informer. Anger is curable by time, hatred not; the aim of anger is pain, of hatred evil; for the angry man wishes to see what happens;46 to one who hates it does not matter.
He goes in new tangents, making an important distinction between “traditional/old” and “natural/inevitable” (which lefties would love to see):
And since that which is old seems closely to resemble that which is natural, it follows that, if two parties have the same good, men are more indignant with the one who has recently acquired it and owes his prosperity to it; for the newly rich cause more annoyance than those who have long possessed or inherited wealth.
His characterization of youth also seems to ring quite true, and feels especially relevant to politically active people my age:
Interesting characterization of “youth”:
In their actions, they prefer the noble to the useful; their life is guided by their character92 rather than by calculation, for the latter aims at the useful, virtue at the noble. At this age more than any other they are fond of their friends and companions because they take pleasure in living in company and as yet judge nothing by expediency, not even their friends. All their errors are due to excess and vehemence and their neglect of the maxim of Chilon, for they do everything to excess, love, hate, and everything else. And they think they know everything, and confidently affirm it, and this is the cause of their excess in everything. If they do wrong, it is due to insolence, not to wickedness. And they are inclined to pity, because they think all men are virtuous and better than themselves; for they measure their neighbors by their own inoffensiveness, so that they think that they suffer undeservedly. And they are fond of laughter, and therefore witty; for wit is cultured insolence. Such then is the character of the young.
He goes on to define those in later life and then those in the "prime of their lives" (30-35) which he says ideally contain a balance of the idealism of youth and the utilitarianism of later life.
Once he's done with those myriad detours, he finally returns to talking about rhetoric near the end, and one of the refrains he repeats is “things in juxtaposition are always clearer to the audience.” he clarifies this in an elaboration near the end:
Refutative enthymemes are more popular than demonstrative, because, in all cases of refutation, it is clearer that a logical conclusion has been reached; for opposites are more noticeable when placed in juxtaposition. The refutation of the opponent is not a particular kind of proof; his arguments should be refuted partly by objection, partly by counter-syllogism.
In other words, juxtaposition (by the use of steelmanning and other tactics) makes the point all the more forceful and foregrounded. As James Hetfield said: "Without darkness there's no light." Aristotle spends a while talking about metaphors and similes, but there's not much of interest there other than metaphors being enigmas and that they "should also be derived from things that are beautiful...in its sound or sense."
I was pleasantly surprised to have stumbled over a story Hamza Yusuf told (I think in his video about "What has Happened to Poetry"), that some poet was offered enough money to sell his dignity and write a poem about a donkey (asses, implying that there's some things which should be below poets and artisans. I was also pleased to see him attacking adverbs and other unnecessary adornment (a la Stephen King), and I loved seeing him defend "exordia," or spoilers at the start of a play (which Nietzsche and other "spoiler-averse" modernists absolutely detest).
Lastly, I wanted to point out something which I mentioned in my recent re-review of Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death," specifically about the domains of oral and written communication:
When compared, the speeches of writers appear meagre in public debates, while those of the rhetoricians, however well delivered, are amateurish when read. The reason is that they are only suitable to public debates; hence speeches suited for delivery, when delivery is absent, do not fulfil their proper function and appear silly.
This does not mean that oral or written is superior or inferior to one another, but rather that they are strongest in their own domains. This is why Postman's critique falls short often, because he is so mired in the idea that the written word is superior, that he denigrates speeches when they're outside of speeches; in other words, he sets up his opponent to fail, then rejoices when they do. I'd like to do the same to him. Aristotle does it to himself, because he's really just not that persuasive, he veers too far from the subject and his few relevant points, though generally good, aren't enough to prop up his work (nor justify his reputation, at least to me). Bleh.
December 18, 2019
Παντες ανθρωποι τον εἱδεναι ορεγονται φυσει-Ἀριστοτέλης
There's this thing little kids do, when they find something they're interested in, where they have to tell everyone every single thing they know about the subject. It almost seems like a pre-theory-of-mind quirk in which a kid literally cannot imagine that another human being could find the subject less than captivating. I myself remember being little and telling anyone—or, at least, anyone who would listen—everything I knew about dinosaurs (there are Iguanodons and Spinosaurs and Ichthyosaurs and...); in some sense, this is how Aristotle philosophizes. His works consist of compulsive list-making with many sections (and subsections and sub-subsections) where he seemingly just tells the reader everything there is to know about a particular subject. This is often overwhelming/annoying and too much of it at once can make Aristotle look oh-so ignorable (and the kid oh-so smotherable), but on more patient days, one can find something both admirable and beautiful in the fact that Aristotle is able to view philosophy with the same liveliness and wonder with which children are able to view the world.
There's this thing little kids do, when they find something they're interested in, where they have to tell everyone every single thing they know about the subject. It almost seems like a pre-theory-of-mind quirk in which a kid literally cannot imagine that another human being could find the subject less than captivating. I myself remember being little and telling anyone—or, at least, anyone who would listen—everything I knew about dinosaurs (there are Iguanodons and Spinosaurs and Ichthyosaurs and...); in some sense, this is how Aristotle philosophizes. His works consist of compulsive list-making with many sections (and subsections and sub-subsections) where he seemingly just tells the reader everything there is to know about a particular subject. This is often overwhelming/annoying and too much of it at once can make Aristotle look oh-so ignorable (and the kid oh-so smotherable), but on more patient days, one can find something both admirable and beautiful in the fact that Aristotle is able to view philosophy with the same liveliness and wonder with which children are able to view the world.
September 16, 2008
I need an Idiot's Guide type book to help me with this one because this is just not sinking in. Perhaps I need to reread it. ehh. I'm not really a fan of rhetoric to begin with but this is certainly the book for orators, politicians, and lawyers to be. Proof, proof, proof, make sure you can back up what you say, but when you don't have proof, at least say it with style and panache, that's half the battle. An interesting read during election season.
One of the most interesting moments in this book is when Aristotle defines happiness:
"If, then, happiness is some such thing, its elements must be: Gentle birth, a wide circle of friends, a virtuous circle of friends, wealth, creditable offspring, extensive offspring and a comfortable old age; also the physical virtues (e.g. health, beauty, strength, size and competitive prowess), reputation, status, good luck and virtue (or also its elements, prudence, courage, justice and moderation)."
One of the most interesting moments in this book is when Aristotle defines happiness:
"If, then, happiness is some such thing, its elements must be: Gentle birth, a wide circle of friends, a virtuous circle of friends, wealth, creditable offspring, extensive offspring and a comfortable old age; also the physical virtues (e.g. health, beauty, strength, size and competitive prowess), reputation, status, good luck and virtue (or also its elements, prudence, courage, justice and moderation)."
February 27, 2010
This book is obviously a classic to the field of rhetoric. It also contains what is essentially the first treatise on human psychology, in addition to systematically analyzing the art of persuasion.
I have never read any other editions of this book, but I would recommend this edition to everyone who wants to read it. George Kennedy's translation and his commentary are incredibly helpful, even amusing at times. His sheer knowledge of Aristotle and this work (he must have spent decades on it) is staggering. Plus, the fact that it's the Oxford University Press gives it some--to use Aristotle's vocabulary--ethos.
I have never read any other editions of this book, but I would recommend this edition to everyone who wants to read it. George Kennedy's translation and his commentary are incredibly helpful, even amusing at times. His sheer knowledge of Aristotle and this work (he must have spent decades on it) is staggering. Plus, the fact that it's the Oxford University Press gives it some--to use Aristotle's vocabulary--ethos.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 331 reviews