Defintion Final

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 8

1

Rhetoric Definition

Alyssa Arace

California State University, Fullerton

ENG 360: Technical Writing

Dr. Leslie Bruce

Sept. 28, 2020


2

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

inform a particular audience. In rhetoric there

are three distinctive artistic proofs, the three

artistic proofs are: ethos, logos, and pathos.

Rhetoric is a device that has a broad and

complex origin. Not only does it have a

complex history, there have been many

different definitions associated with this term.

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

more fluid definition of this keyword (​Lundberg, 2013).

Etymology

The word “rhetoric” derives from the Greek word ​rhētorikē​, which means art of oratory

(Merriam-Webster, n.d.).

Ethos, Logos, & Pathos

Within the art of being a persuasive

writer or speaker are three artistic proofs

developed by Aristotle. According to Aristotle,

with these proofs it is granted that the writer or

speaker will have the power to persuade their

audience.
3

Ethos

Ethos is the writer’s or speaker's credibility. If the speaker’s character is in accordance

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

speaker to appeal to their audience.

Logos

Logos is the principal of reason. In contrast with pathos, logos does not appeal to an

audience’s emotions, rather it offers cold arguments with statistical evidence.

History of How Rhetoric Definition Came to Be

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

became crucial to society.

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

knowledge had the opportunity to sway their audience.

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

used to deceive them.

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

to persuade an audience with rhetoric.


7

References

Christian O. Lundberg. (2013). Letting Rhetoric Be: On Rhetoric and Rhetoricity. ​Philosophy &

Rhetoric,​ ​46(​ 2), 247-255. doi:10.5325/philrhet.46.2.0247

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Rhetoric. In ​Merriam-Webster.com dictionary​. Retrieved September

21, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric

Pahl, K. (2012). Pathos. In ​Tropes of Transport: Hegel and Emotion​ (pp. 50-80). Evanston,

Illinois: Northwestern University Press. Retrieved September 22, 2020, from

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

Review,​ (191), 401-421. Retrieved September 22, 2020, from

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

version, it is still an important aspect when understanding the keyword.

You might also like