Aristotle's Rhetoric in Explaining Aristotle's Rhetoric, the

ARISTOTLE'S RHETORIC In explaining Aristotle's Rhetoric, the following paper will first begin with a brief on the definition of Rhetorician as defined by Aristotle. According to his definition, a rhetorician is an individual with the certain ability to 'see the persuasive element'. (Topics VI.12.149b25). Thus, rhetoric is that ability which sees the possible persuasive element in every given case.

(Rhet.1.2,1355b26f) Aristotle's Rhetoric Aristotle thus terms rhetoric as a neutral tool, which can be used for either of the good or bad purposes by both the virtuous as well as the depraved individuals.

Accepting his art of rhetoric's ability to be misused, he even proposes certain factors that can be used to overturn the misuse of rhetoric's, for example rhetoric is true for all goods, except for virtue, that it is better used in convincing the just and the good as compared to the unjust and wrong arguments, and that the benefits of rhetoric's outweigh its misuse.

Furthermore, Aristotle negates the concept that rhetoric's is only used for winning the audience and/or hiding the true aims and objectives, as in his views; an individual desirous of communicating the truth to his audience does not need the tool of rhetoric's to assist him or her.

He further stresses that those in dire need to express truth and just arguments too need the tool of rhetoric's, in particular when faced with a public audience, as it would be nearly impossible for a public audience to be taught the truth and just, even in circumstances where the speaker has a complete grasp and knowledge on the subject of the speech [Herrick, J, 2001].

The simple reasoning forwarded by Aristotle for this inability of the general public to understand the true and just text of the speech, and/or the real objective of the speaker, is that in his views, ordinary people seldom have the capacity to follow exact proof based on the principles of science.

Giving examples of different situations which certainly would prove his views on rhetoric's, Aristotle goes to stress that factors such as the constitution and laws of a particular place, or for that matter the rhetorical habits of that city would further hamper the people's ability to understand the real context of the speaker's speech. They could as well be misled by totally unrelated factors and be impressed by simple flattery, thus diverting the attention of the public from focusing on the real issues of the speaker.

Another reasoning presented by Aristotle is that the nature of topics chosen for public addresses too plays a significant part in conveying a certain message to the public.

Most of the topics so chosen do not contain therein exact information and are more or less generalized, thus leaving a substantial room for doubts within the minds of the public, and to succeed in such situations, the only course of action would be to present an individual, who is not only well-known, but credible as well, and there is the element of the mood of the audience, which must at least be sympathetic, if one is to really convey his or her message across the audience.

From this argument, Aristotle deduces that for a particular message to get across, it is thus not the aspect and grasp of knowledge of the subject at hand, instead of the capacity of persuasiveness on the part of the speaker, which allows and effects the audience, be it the audience consisting of general public, the juries and/or the assemblies.

Thus, the individual may be an occasional or frequent persuasive speaker, yet it is the rhetoric's that allows him to have a grasp on all sources of persuasion on any given subject. On going through the history of rhetoric's, it is observed that the orators or speakers paid a lot of attention on the use of methods and techniques outside the real subject or topic under discussion.

For example methods such as arousing the emotions within the public, distracting them from the attention of the subject, or even slandering the public. These techniques thus did not allow the hearer, public or juries, to constitute rational judgments, instead were led to the believe in whatever was uttered. Aristotle in following his teacher Plato's footsteps contradicted these approaches, and presented what was called a rhetorical proof, termed as enthymeme method of speech.

He believed in choosing a style and subject, which has already been proven, thus leaving no space for the public to get confused or distracted. As it is a generally accepted principle that people normally listen to an issue, which is both true as well as convincingly presented in front of them, rather than listen to an emotional or other methods which only lead to a confused and/or misled audience. Plato's Phaedrus is limited in its scope as it only analyzes the narrator, the creator or artist.

An example of the above style of speech and presentation by the orator may be found in 'Rhetoric' by Aristotle. The repetitive stance, "I came to him; I talked to him; I entreated him' (Rhetoric by Aristotle, page 156), may appear to be a collection of facts, but in such situations, not only has the orator neglected the attention of the audience, one can feel the listener inability to comprehend the orator's view as well.

In Plato's Phaedrus the same rhetoric that of using the audience's inability to understand and thus mislead them, has been effectively used. As evident by the following quote "for the inexperience and utter ignorance of his hearers about any subject.