“A rhetorician may describe either the speaker’s knowledge of the art or his moral purpose. In dialectic it is different: a man is a ‘sophist’ because he has a certain kind of moral purpose, a ‘dialectician’ in respect, not of his moral purpose, but of his faculty.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric Pg 7 (End of Book 1 section 1)
“Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. … But rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us; and that is why we say that, in its technical character, it is not concerned with any special or definite class of subjects. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric Pg 7 (Book 1 section 2)
“Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric (Book 1 section 2)
“There are then there three means of effecting persuasion. The man who is to be in command of the must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to understand the emotions – that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the way in which they are excited. It thus appears that rhetoric is an offshoot of dialectic and also of ethical studies.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric Pg 9 (Book 1 section 2)
“Neither rhetoric nor dialectic is the scientific study of any one subject: both are faculties for providing arguments. This is perhaps a sufficient account of their scope and of how they are related to each other.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric Pg 9 (Book 1 section 2)
“Everyone who effects persuasion through proof does in fact use either enthymemes or examples there is no other way.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric Pg 9 (Book 1 section 2)
“A statement is persuasive and credible either because it is directly self-evident or because it appears to be proved from other statements that are so.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric Pg 10 (Book 1 section 2)
“Of Signs, one kind bears the same relation to the statement it supports as the particular bears to the universal, the other the same as the universal bears to the particular. The infallible kind is a ’complete proof’ (tekmerhiou); the fallible kind has no specific name.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric Pg 12 (Book 1 section 2)
“Rhetoric falls into three divisions, determined by the three classes of listeners to speeches. For of the three elements in speech-making-speaker, subject and person addressed- it is the last one, the hearer, that determines the speech’s end and object. The hearer must be either a judge, with a decision to make about things past or future, or an observer.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric Pg 15 (Book 1 section 3)
“From this it follows that there are three division’s of oratory- (1) political (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display. Political speaking urges us either to do or not to do something: … Forensic speaking either attacks of defends somebody: on or other of there two things must always be done by the parties in a case. The ceremonial oratory of display either praises or censures somebody. There three kinds of rhetoric refer to three different kinds of time.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric Pg 15 (Book 1 section 3) (Political future, Forensic past, and orator present)
“Rhetoric has three distinct ends in view, one for each of its three kinds. The political orator aims at establishing the expediency or the harmfulness of a proposed course of action; if he urges its acceptance, he does so on the ground that it will do good; if he urges its rejection, he does so on the ground that it will do harm; and all other points, such as whether the proposal is just or unjust, honourable or dishonourable, he brings in as subsidiary and relative to this main consideration. Parties in a law-case aim at establishing the justice or injustice of some action, and they too bring in all other points as subsidiary ad relative to this one. Those who praise or attack a man aim at proving him worthy of honour or the reverse, and they too treat all other considerations with reference to this one.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric Pg 16 (Book 1 section 3)
“Now the propositions of rhetoric are Complete Proofs, Probabilities, and Signs.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric Pg 16 (Book 1 section 3)
No comments:
Post a Comment