Defintion Final
Defintion Final
Defintion Final
Rhetoric Definition
Alyssa Arace
Definition
Rhetoric is a literary device that exemplifies the art of persuasion in speaking and
writing. It is the means a writer or speaker uses when they are aiming to persuade, motivate, or
This definition referenced will be of the most common definition used today, established by
Aristotle. Aristotle is credited with creating the modern definition of rhetoric that purposes for a
Etymology
The word “rhetoric” derives from the Greek word rhētorikē, which means art of oratory
(Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
audience.
3
Ethos
with how the speech is written, the audience will grant the speaker credibility (WRÓBEL, 2015,
pp. 409).
Pathos
Pathos is the writer's or speaker’s emotions or connections with their audience. With the
use of pathos, a speaker is able to drive in passion to their audience which compels them to
become persuaded (Pahl, 2013, pp. 55). This technique is beneficial as it has the ability for the
Logos
Logos is the principal of reason. In contrast with pathos, logos does not appeal to an
Homeric Period
The Homeric period was a time where society was preliterate. They had no written
vocabulary thus used only verbal methods when communicating truth. They relied solely on
storytelling to teach values and roles for how society should act. For this reason, storytellings
were instantly regarded as truth. Their stories were known as myths. Contrary to the words
definition now, myths did not mean fake. In the Homeric period their word mythos equaled
logos. This meant any myth that had been passed down was automatically viewed as the truth.
For this, critical thinking was not a major aspect for people of this time. It wasn’t until the end of
the Homeric period where people had begun to undermine their truth. Greece had started to trade
with other cultures around the world, once being exposed to these new cultures they started to
4
doubt their myths. When their stories stopped working they decided to vote, this led to a new
democracy. The new wave of democracy created a demand for teachers, these teachers were
known as Sophists. A new period called the Sophist movement emerged, where critical thinking
Sophist Period
Early Greeks celebrated the rise of democracy as their society was continuously being
impacted with more trade and more stories from around the world. The Sophistic period was led
by Gorgias and were the first people to think about rhetoric. Gorgias was the most famous
Sophist and is often referred to as the father of the movement. They believed that even if there's a
truth, one cannot communicate it since language is vague. This created a demand for a new way
of making decisions, which was debate based on critical thinking. Debate would take place at the
polus. The polus was where a decision making body of society went to debate on truth (Preus,
2017). According to Sophists, debating equaled the truth as they believed in only the probable or
relative truth. As well as the Sophist period was celebrated with new cultures and ideas the
period also led to corruption in society. Although the polus allowed people to debate out the
truth, only the wealthy and well educated could defend themselves well. For example, even if
one was not telling the truth, if one could debate it out well their truth was automatically
regarded over the other. This showed the art of rhetoric and that a good speaker with proper
Philosophical Period
Following the Sophists, a man by the name of Socrates noticed the unjust way of truth.
Socrates was the leader during the Philosophical period and wanted elites to be the only ones
making decisions for society. He referred to these elites as philosopher kings. He hated debate as
5
he saw it did not focus on truth and was not just. It solely relied on democracy which he spoke
against. He believed that the average person did not qualify to make such important decisions for
society as they were lazy and did not wish to educate themselves on the topic properly before
voting. That’s where philosopher kings came in, only they were knowledgeable enough to vote
in Socrates eyes. His outspoken words against the Sophist way of democracy ultimately resulted
in his forced suicde. A student of Socrates, Plato, followed up on his method. He believed that
rhetoric is bad. It killed Socrates, thus has to be bad. He proclaimed that rhetoric was like
cookery, it makes ideas pleasing to the palate. Plato goes on to write books about rhetoric but it
isn’t until his second book where he writes about how rhetoric can be good if used correctly to
deceive the masses. For example, there are always dirty jobs people do not want to do, but they
must be done by somebody, so in order to convince people to pursue these jobs rhetoric must be
It wasn’t until one of Plato’s students, Aristotle, did he bridge the connection from the
Sophists and the Philosphers of the definition of rhetoric. Aristotle is one of the prime figures of
Greek Philosophy and is considered one of the greatest thinkers in politics. He believed that
rhetoric was the offshoot of the dialectic and it was an art of persuasion that served purpose as to
teach, to move, or to please (Preus, 2017, pp. 193). He acknowledged that the Sophists were
right, there are human affairs that can be debated on while also acknowledging that the
Philosophers were right and that some things couldn’t be debated on for truth, like nature.
Humans believed in the uncertain and the certain, so both views on rhetoric were valid. Three
methods of human affairs used in debate are: forensic oratory, epideictic oratory, and
deliberative oratory. Forensic refers to the past and this method is often used in courts. Epideictic
refers to the values of society. Lastly, Deliberate refers to the future, legislative, and the policies
6
to be implemented. Aristotle also developed three methods of rhetorical proof: ethos, logos, and
pathos (Preus, 2017, pp. 195). He believed these were all techniques any good orator should have
References
Christian O. Lundberg. (2013). Letting Rhetoric Be: On Rhetoric and Rhetoricity. Philosophy &
Pahl, K. (2012). Pathos. In Tropes of Transport: Hegel and Emotion (pp. 50-80). Evanston,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt22727qd.6
Preus, A. (2017). Philosophy and Rhetoric in Western Greece: Focus on Empedocles and
Gorgias. In Reid H., Tanasi D., & Kimbell S. (Eds.), Politics and Performance in
Western Greece: Essays on the Hellenic Heritage of Sicily and Southern Italy (pp.
193-204). Iowa: Parnassos Press – Fonte Aretusa. Retrieved September 22, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbj7grj.14
WRÓBEL, S. (2015). "Logos, Ethos, Pathos". Classical Rhetoric Revisited. Polish Sociological
http://www.jstor.org/stable/44113896
Postwrite
In my definition, the main definition strategies I used were compare and contrast and
etymology. For compare and contrast, this is found in the “Ethos, Pathos, & Logos” section. I
used this strategy to compare the three proofs because although they are similar and often used
together, they are distinct and it’s important to not get them confused with one another.
Etymology was also important in my definition and is found in the “History” section. There is a
8
long history of how rhetoric came to be and although I am just defining the Greek Philosopher