The Art of Rhetoric

Glossary

Since I’m not a native English speaker, and almost none can give a exact Chinese interpretation about the word rhetoric, here’s some Wikitionary for building a basic background and understanding about the topics in TAR. I’ll just copy & paste them directly. I’m surprised that Wikipedia forms with Markdown syntax, but the structure is a bit rigid, so I’ve reworked the titles in this whole page to match the title structures in Wikipedia. It’s a bit odd in first appearance.

I also want to point out some abuses in Chinese about the word rhetoric. You pop up any Chinese-English lexicon, you go to R section, you find rhetoric, and 99% I’m sure it says:

修辞

It must either mean I’m bad in understanding Chinese, which is the language I’ve spoken since I was born, or that there’s something missing in our so-called five-millennial culture which every Chinese is so proud of. If it’s just one letter 辞 in ancient Chinese, then it makes more sense, but it hardly translates and atone into modern Chinese, and it’s not so pervasive.

I’m confident that 95% of the time, 修辞’s one and only meaning is confined or generalized to either as a noun: metaphor, or as an adjective: metaphorical. We learned a lot literature from our elementary school all the way up to high school(I didn’t study any Chinese literature in college, and all the evidences surrounding me suggests that no one have a deep understanding about argument, logic or rhetoric. Most acting in accordance with their guts, and this is their only compass for courses of actions.) Mostly, we learned how the authors rendered their emotions or ideologies using analogies, metaphors, examples, etc. Never have I ever experienced systematic logic in my life before I studied Armstrong’s PHIL 101. I may good at calculus, but no one told me about logic. I may sense what’s reason, intention, motives, conclusions or examples, evidences, but never realized what is the real logic.

Semiotics, especially the symbols, to me is the concrete sign of the abstraction of some elusive idea, sense or sentiment. This fascinates me. You can stretch, or bend their meaning to a broader sense, or narrow it down. A lot of them are actually metaphorically illustrative in nature. You do it elegantly, you can attain precision, while maintain eloquence and rhetoric.

Rhetoric

Alternative forms

• rhetorick (obsolete)

Etymology 1

From Middle English rethorik, from Latin rēthoricus, rhētoricus, from Ancient Greek ῥητορῐκός (rhētorikós).

Pronunciation

• IPA(key): /ɹɪˈtɒɹɪk/

• Audio (Southern England)	Duration: 2 seconds.0:02

Adjective

rhetoric

1. Synonym of rhetorical.

Etymology 2

From Middle English rethorik, rhetoric, from Old French rhetorique, from Latin rhētorica, from Ancient Greek ῥητορική (rhētorikḗ), ellipsis of ῥητορικὴ τέχνη (rhētorikḕ tékhnē), from ῥητορικός (rhētorikós, “concerning public speech”), from ῥήτωρ (rhḗtōr, “public speaker”).

Pronunciation

• IPA(key): /ˈɹɛtəɹɪk/

• Audio (Southern England)	Duration: 2 seconds.0:02

Noun

rhetoric (countable and uncountable, plural rhetorics)

1. The art of using language, especially public speaking, as a means to persuade.

2. Meaningless language with an exaggerated style intended to impress.

   It’s only so much rhetoric.

Synonyms

• wordcraft

Derived terms

• deep rhetoric
• rhetorical
• rhetorician

Related terms

English terms derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *werh₁-‎ (0 c, 16 e)

Collocations

Collocations

Translations

±art of using language for persuasion

±meaningless language

See also

• preterition
• Appendix:Glossary of rhetoric

Anagrams

• torchier

Enthymeme

Etymology

From Ancient Greek ἐνθύμημα (enthúmēma, “thought, consideration”), from ἐν (en, “within, with”) + θυμός (thumós, “soul, life”).

Pronunciation

• IPA(key): /ˈɛnθɪˌmiːm/

Noun

enthymeme (plural enthymemes)

1. A by and large statement, a maxim, an argument that is intended to be generally true and not apply to every case universally.
2. (logic) A syllogism with a required but unstated assumption.

Derived terms

• enthymematic
• enthymematical
• enthymemic
• enthymemical

Related terms

• thymus

Translations

±by and large statement

±syllogism with required but unstated assumption

Dialectic

Alternative forms

• dialectick (obsolete)

Pronunciation

• IPA(key): /ˌdaɪəˈlɛktɪk/

  • Audio (Southern England)	Duration: 2 seconds.0:02

• Rhymes: -ɛktɪk

Etymology 1

From Old French dialectique, from Late Latin dialectica, from Ancient Greek διαλεκτική (dialektikḗ, “the art of argument through interactive questioning and answering”), from διαλεκτικός (dialektikós, “relating to dialogue”), from διαλέγομαι (dialégomai, “to participate in a dialogue”), from διά (diá, “through, across”) + λέγειν (légein, “to speak”).

Noun

dialectic (countable and uncountable, plural dialectics)

1. Any formal system of reasoning that arrives at a truth by the exchange of logical arguments.

2. A contradiction of ideas that serves as the determining factor in their interaction.

   This situation created the inner dialectic of American history.

3. (Marxism) Progression of conflict, especially class conflict.

Related terms

• dialect
• dialectical
• dialogue
• trialectic, trialectics

Etymology 2

From Latin dialecticus, from Ancient Greek δῐᾰλεκτῐκός (dialektikós).[1]

Adjective

dialectic (comparative more dialectic, superlative most dialectic)

1. Dialectical.

Etymology 3

From dialect +‎ -ic.[1]

Adjective

dialectic (comparative more dialectic, superlative most dialectic)

1. Dialectal.

References

1. James A. H. Murray [et al.], editors (1884–1928), “Dialectic”, in A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (Oxford English Dictionary), volume III (D–E), London: Clarendon Press, →OCLC, page 310, column 2.

Further reading

• “dialectic” in Raymond Williams, Keywords (revised), 1983, Fontana Press, page 106.

Anagrams

• deictical

Etymology

Borrowed from French dialectique, from Latin dialecticus.

Adjective

dialectic m or n (feminine singular dialectică, masculine plural dialectici, feminine and neuter plural dialectice)

1. dialectical

Declension

Declension of dialectic

Sollygism(I’ve learned Duke’s How to reason and argue, I’m well informed by now.)

Refer to Armstrong’s How to Reason and Argue.

Metaphor

Preface & Intro

The preface mostly discusses the summary of the RHETORIC, the perspective of Aristotle; backgrounds that nurture Aristotle’s views, structure of the work, insights that rendered, controversies that are still in debate, and problems of the translation. All of these readers should keep in mind while reading, be aware of the limitations of the era and that of the linguistic as well.

3 Objectives of persuasion:

1. Justice(Forensic)
2. Admirability(Epideictic)
3. Advisability(Deliberative, Political)

2 Differences between enthymemes and syllogisms:

1. Enthymemes suppresses the use of premises
2. Premises and conclusions of enthymemes are not necessarily 100% true

The psychology aspect of interrelation of deliberation and emotion is less focused in the RHETORIC than that in the ETHICS.

Aristotle’s perspective towards emotions are restricted. He’s more interested in answering and discovering the landscape for emotions to happen.

With that said, it’s not necessarily and sufficiently to say that Aristotle didn’t produce insight of emotions.

Aristotle’s 3 conditions for emotions:

1. Subject equipped to experience emotion: Aristotle suggests that one must be in a inclined state for emotion to happen.
2. A stimulus to arouse the emotion: A certain event that triggers the chemistry of emotion.
3. The object of the emotion must be of the appropriate kind: The people we are delivering emotions to must be appropriate to ourselves.

Aristotle’s preoccupied when exploring anger. Author’s note suggests that the sense of object’s owing is part of the case too, just for illustration that Aristotle didn’t holistically inducted all the stimulus of anger.

Aristotle believed in patriarchy, which may contribute to his perspective about the subjects that he argued. Besides that, Aristotle strongly defends slavery.

The discussions of emotions in the RHETORIC are very biased and limited by his time and character. But we cannot deny that Aristotle raise some real insight. The reader should use his/her own best judgement of which are nutritious and which are not.

Aristotle’s view on friendship:

1. Based on interest: Interests align, or the object carries some attractive characteristic.
2. Based on pleasure
3. Based on contemplation

And another condition, friends cannot have serious difference in opinions.

Note: I believe Aristotle’s view on friendship is rather speculative and cannot justify all circumstances of friendship.

On envy and jealousy, Aristotle provides great acumen.

Aristotle’s controversial demonstration of 3 characteristics of an orator:

1. Intelligence
2. Virtue
3. Goodwill

Age and social/material condition are 2 primary determinant of an character by Aristotle. He believes age can render great humanity and thus form a richer character. He believes the orator must adjust and adapt to his audiences’ age to project a better image, and thus achieve the intention and goal of an epideictic speech.

By social/material position, they are consisted by 3 major factors:

1. Birth
2. Wealth
3. Power

“Style” is about the ways of delivering, “the manner of the expression.” It is for the most part, conceptual and no way of assessing.

the manner of the expression must always suit the content of what is being put across, in such a way as to maximize the impact that it has on the audience

The what of the art of rhetoric consists 3 major parts:

1. Appropriate language
2. Arrangement of language
3. Delivering of language

3 cardinal virtues of good oratorical style:

1. Clarity
   1. wording
   2. linguistic
   3. Syntax
   4. …
2. Decoration
   1. Amplitude
   2. Rhythm
   3. Tone
   4. Sentence structure
   5. …
3. Propriety
   1. Aptitude to the subject
   2. Appropriate genre

The order of the discussion of style is rather chaotic.

Discussion of Style chapter structure:

Chapter 3.2: clarity and metaphor(ornate) Chapter 3.3 misuse of metaphor Chapter 3.4: simile Chapter 3.5: linguistic purity Chapter 3.6 Amplitude Chapter 3.7 propriety Chapter 3.8: prose rhythm Chapter 3.9: sentence structure Chapter 3.10-11: figures of metaphor(ornate) Chapter 3.12: generic variation

The goal of the introduction of Isocrates’ Helen: To arouse sympathy and claim some sort of superiority over his adversaries. The goal of epideictic introduction: To arouse empathy and connect with audiences. The goal of forensic introduction remains unclear.

All introductions must convey a sense of clarity. Establish a general idea about what’s the subject of the speech.

Forensic intro serves another important function: Discredit, abuse, slant or slander the adversary. Topics of such built up, and slander in conclusion.

Narration must be in consistent with the rest of the oratory.

Staseis: Structures of proofs that are appropriate to different genres of speech. Aristotle provides valuable insight to proofing.

Ancient Greek didn’t realize and value Aristotle’s Rhetoric. They didn’t put it into practice, only a mere panegyric. It is the Romanians who treasure the legacy and put it into practice.

Points of interests:

Cope, Introduction to the ‘Rhetoric’ of Aristotle

Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece

Cicero, De Oratore

Alcidamas

Phaedrus, Plato

Cope (Introduction to the ‘Rhetoric’ of Aristotle)

Cicero’s speeches.

Cicero’s De Oratore, Ad Atticum

Pliny

Tacitus

Quintilian Institutio Oratorio

Hugo Vickers’s In Defence of Rhetoric

Bekker

Aristotle, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics

The Art of Rhetoric by Aristotle

Chapter 1.1 The Nature of Rhetoric

Definition of Rhetoric:

The detection of the persuasive aspects of each matter and this is in line with all other skills.

The Genres of Oratory

Chapter 1.2 The definition of rhetoric

Enthymeme: The syllogism of rhetoric.

Demonstration from the fact: is deduction in logic and enthymeme in rhetoric.

Definition of persuasiveness:

Persuasiveness is persuasiveness for an individual, and in some cases a proposition convinces through being itself persuasive and immediately credible and in others by the belief that it has been demonstrated from premises that are so.

Rhetoric consider opinions of groups of a certain kind.

Deductions premises are drawn from matters calling for rational discussion. Rhetoric’s premises are matters about which is established custom to deliberate.

Conditions for premises and conclusions:

1. Conclusions of previous syllogisms
   1. Con: Not easy to follow through because of the construction of premises.
2. • (syllogisms of not received opinions)
   1. Con: Not following common sense.(Otherwise it’s pointless.)

Thus, both enthymeme and example(premises) must be:

example being inductive and enthymeme deductive.

Probability, Evidence, and Signification

The probable: What happens for the most part.

-(the probable) = The minor(I made up)

The probable and -(the probable) or the minor, is like the general v.s. the particular.

Signs: [The General]∪[The Particular]

Evidence: The Necessary Sign = Possible Premises of syllogisms

-(Evidence): The Unnecessary Sign

Impossible to refute: Evidences are offered and the point conclusively demonstrated.(General to the particular)

Particular to the general, bad example:

∵ Socrates was wise.
∵ Socrates was just.
--------------------
∴ The wise are just.

This is indeed a sign, but a refutable one, even if what it indicates is true, since it is non-deductive.

Evidence, good example:

The patient was feverish.
The patient was ill.

The animal had milk.
The animal had given birth.

True indication(premise) constitutes evidence.

General to the particular, bad example:

The patient has rapid respiration.
The patient has fever.

What is Example

Example is an induction, and the purpose is to illustrate the connection with the subject.

Example’s bad scenario: The whole to the whole, part to the whole, the whole to the part.

Example’s good scenario: The part to the part.

Good Example of Example:

Pisistratus petitioned for a bodyguard.
Pisistratus was granted a bodyguard.
Pisistratus became tyrant.

Theagenes in Megard petitioned for a bodyguard.
Theagenes in Megard was granted a bodyguard.
Theagenes became tyrant.

Dionysius is petitioning for a bodyguard.
Dionysius is plotting tyranny.

∴ Dionysius might became tyrant.

Further, we can make an inductive conclusion that:

Pisistratus became tyrant after granted a bodyguard.
Theagenes became tyrant after granted a bodyguard.

∴ Anyone is plotting tyranny asks for a bodyguard.

Topics:

• special topics: premisses peculiar to a particular kind
• common topics: premises common to all.

Chapter 1.3 Genres of the Rhetoric

3 Genres of rhetoric:

• Deliberative (future orientated)
  • Exhortation
  • Deterrence
• Forensic (past orientated)
  • Prosecution
  • Defense
• Display (present orientated)
  • Praise
  • Denigration

Evidence, probability and signs are the premisses in rhetoric

Other aspects that all orators tend to demonstrate: the degree of which their objectives are delivered, relative size, general/particular…

Chapter 1.4 The province of deliberation

Objective: Urge advantages or dissuasion.

Five subjects of deliberation:

• Revenue: Not only adding possessions, but also avoiding expenses, not only learn from experience, but also from surveying elsewhere.
• War and Peace: Learn every outcome, gain / loss, from every similar circumstance from the past, analyze the present, and forecast the future for latent gains/loss. Make peace with the stronger and opt to invade the weaker.
• Import and Export: Know the extent and nature of what outlay suffices the city, home-grown and imported, what produce should be exported, what imported, so that there may be treaties and agreements. Keep good terms with the people,
• Legislation: democracy is destroyed not only by relaxation to oligarchy, but also intensification. Must know the advantageous measure of the constitution, and intrinsic or antagonistic factors they are prone to be overthrown. Must possess knowledge to ascertain the laws of the nations.
• The defense of the realm: Must know how the city is defended, numbers of the guard, location of the guard-posts, support the inadequate, prune the supernumerary.

Chap 1.5 Happiness

Happiness(eudaimonia) is the ultimate goal of any human conduct.

Let happiness, then, be virtuous welfare, or self-sufficiency in life or the pleasantest secure life or material and physical well-being accompanied by the capacity to safeguard or procure the same

Birth: to be indigenous or ancient and to have distinguished founders with many descendants distinguished in matters that excite envy.

Offspring: the presence of much excellent youth, excellent in point of physical virtue, such as size, beauty, strength and competitive capacity.

Wealth: abundance of money and land, the possession of estates outstanding for number, extent and beauty and also that of furniture, slaves and cattle of outstanding numbers and quality, all these being owned, secure, liberal and useful. Utility has more to do with fruitfulness, liberality with consumption. being rich lies more in using than in having, as wealth is the realization and consumption of this sort of thing.

Reputation: taken to be a serious figure or to possess something that everybody wants, or the majority, or the virtuous or the prudent, and honour is a mark of a reputation for good works, and it is those who have done good works that are rightly and most particularly honoured, although a man capable of good works is also honoured.

• The elements of honour are: sacrifices, memorials both in verse and without metre, rewards, sanctuaries, precedence, tombs, statues, public maintenance, barbarian practices, such as genuflection and standing back, and gifts, which are valued by all recipients.

Health:

• Young: Free from disease, useful body and pleasant to look.
• Old: Free from pain, sufficiency against troubles.
• Strength: Power to manipulate others at will, by dragging, pushing, lifting, pressing or squeezing.
• Size: Exceed in all 3 dimensions above, the faster to excel, the better.

Friends: Has people who performs for his self-interest. The more the better.

Fortune: Possess good things that happen in nature, or by luck. The more, the better; the more important, the better.

Virtue.

Chap 1.6 The Good and The Expedient

As a deliberative orator, it’s not about what is happiness, but about (how) to achieve happiness.

Definition of Good:

Let the good, then, be whatever is to be chosen for its own sake and that for which we choose other things, and the objects of general desire or that of all sensory or intelligent creatures, or what would be for others if they acquired mind, and such things as intuition would attribute to each individual, and what particular intuition does assign to each individual

De-abstract, what it means “Goodness” for an individual:

• “Goodness” is either for self-interest or interests of others.

• “Goodness” is the object of general desire or that of all creatures that are sensory or intelligent or acquire mind.

• Such things as intuition would attribute “Goodness” to each individual, and some particular intuition would assign “Goodness” to each individual.

• Self-sufficiency: whatever produces or preserves all these things, and that which they accompany, and the things preventative and destructive of their opposites.

2 kinds of accompaniment of the “Good”: Simultaneous(Life w/ health), subsequent, the advantage of lacking a bad thing is immediate and that of having a good thing is subsequent.

3 things produce health: 1. being healthy; 2. food; 3. exercise

Acquisition /rejection of the “Goodness”: You acquire greater good than lesser good, lesser evil than greater evil. The rejection is the opposite.

Itemized list of “Goodness”:

• Happiness: Intrinsically eligible and self-sufficient.
• Virtues of the soul: Justice, courage, restraint, magnanimity, splendour, …
• Health & beauty
• Wealth: virtue of possession.
• Friendship and the friend
• Status and reputation
• Verbal and practical capacity
• Wit, memory, aptitude to learn
• Being alive

Integral premises of the above:

• That whose opposite is an evil is a good.
• That whose opposite is in one’s enemies’ interest.
• In general, whatever the enemy wants or in whatever they rejoice, its opposite is an apparent good.

This is, however, not universal but for the most part. There is nothing to stop the same thing’s being on occasion expedient for opponents. Hence the remark that evils bring men together, whenever the same thing threatens them both.

• What is not excessive is good and what is greater than it should be bad.
• The object of much effort and expenditure.

Also:

• What the many aspire and what is openly contested.
• What is praised
• Sometimes hostile or base men applaud.
• What a wise or good man or woman has preferred.
• Preferred things in general.
• Whatever occurs as desired.
• Personal things, things that no one else has, and outstanding things.
• Things that suit people, which are belong to them by birth or position.
• Things easily accomplished.
• Things that amuse friends and are detested by foes.
• Things that those admired prefer to do.
• Things that no bad guys want.
• Whatever men happen to be keen on.

Chapter 1.7 The relative expediency

Definition of relative advantage and expediency:

Let the exceeding advantage, then, be so much and more and that which is exceeded be what is below it, the greater and more numerous being always relative to a lesser, and large and small and many and few being relative to majority dimensions, the excessive being the large, the deficient the small and the same going for many and few.

“Good” is what intrinsically eligible and not for the sake of something else.

Generally:

• More good is better than less good;
• Less bad is better than more bad;
•  If the greatest advantage of one kind exceeds the greatest of another or others of its own kind, and, when one kind exceeds another, then the greatest of the first exceeds that of the second
• Also when a accompanies b, but not b to a, either either simultaneously or sequentially or potentially
• Things exceed by more are greater
• That whose cause is greater, the better
• The eligible in itself more than the not eligible in itself
• If one thing were to be an end and the other not(e.g. well-being of the body is an end, exercise is not.)
• What needs less of some other thing or things
• When one thing could not be without the other, or would not be able to come about, but the other could without it, as what lacks the need is more self-sufficient, thus better.
• What is relatively rarer more than what is abundant
• what is harder is better than what is easier, as it is rarer.
• That whose opposite is the greater and that whose remark is more serious
• Things whose functions are more or less noble are greater goods or evils, and also of those things whose defects and virtues are more important the functions are greater, and those whose functions are nobler or baser are greater, since, as are the causes and principles, so are the effects and, as are the effects, so are the causes and principles.
• Things whose excess is more eligible or more noble, as accurate sight is more eligible than accurate smell
• the excesses of better things are better and those of nobler things nobler.
• Things the desire for which is nobler and better
• Things of which the sciences are nobler or more serious and the actions are nobler and more weighty
• What the wise would judge to be good or have so judged or all men or the absolute or relative majority or the most powerful
• The properties of better men either in general or in so far as they are better, in the way that courage is better than strength.