Hello,

For this response I posed two questions. How does Aristotle’s enthymeme, ethos, pathos, logos compare to Cicero’s stasis system in regards to appealing to an audience? And how do they differ?

Aristotle’s idea of an enthymeme based argument revolved around the emotion and common knowledge of the audience. By taking into account the emotion, or pathos, Aristotle felt that the audience would relate to what the speaker was saying, and be further inclined to agree with whatever argument was being made. To further catalyze this effect, Aristotle believed the rhetor should take into account the knowledge of the audience. This is the enthymeme idea. This tactic of securing audience agreement is, in my opinion, very similar to the stasis argument.

In order to convince an audience of an idea more easily, Cicero, like Aristotle, created a system aimed at adjusting to an audience. This is the stasis system, and though it is more geared for creating agreeable terms for an argument, without the use of the stasis system, an agreement will be hard to come to. This is similar to appealing to an audience, like Aristotle teaches. Similarly to an enthymeme, the first part of the stasis system looks at fact. An enthymeme takes into account the fact known about an argument, while the stasis system questions if fact is present.

Though these similarities do exist, Aristotle’s teachings and Cicero’s stasis system do differ in a lot of ways. The stasis system aims to set the foundation of a meaningful debate that is capable of coming to an agreement. Aristotle’s teachings more so deal with the faculty of making an argument and then taking into account things like the audiences emotion. Though some of the same themes exist in both teachings, Aristotle’s teaching does not look at the feasibility of the argument as much as Cicero’s.

Rhetoric Dialouge -1f59kra

Rhetoric Dialouge -1f526xn

Hello,

My first definition of rhetoric was “the argumentation of an idea or thesis pertaining to a specific discipline supported by research, secondary sources, and primary sources.”

First off, this is a very historical definition, especially with the mention of sources. I also make no mention of ethos, pathos, logos, or kyros, another historical standpoint. These are crucial in the definition of rhetoric, but, as I mention in my last post, I do not believe I can define rhetoric in a sentence or even a paper. There are so many differing sides to the argument, dissoi logoi is very real for the definition of rhetoric. We have studied so many years of history, and Herrick has presented so many definitions for very very knowledgeable writers that it just is not possible to sum up rhetoric in one definition. However, I could talk about it, and at great length. My argument would surround ethos, logos, pathos, and kyros, but I would make it clear that I could not give the reader an exact definition that would over all facets of the discipline.

Hello,

After reading Ch.7 and seeing yet another time periods take on rhetoric, I have discovered a view of rhetoric that may be too historical, yet, here it is.

After viewing a thousand years of rhetorical practice from Ancient Greece to the Mid Evil period, I believe that there is no one way to define rhetoric without missing some aspects of the discipline.

I will most likely argue this through a discussion between two people, allowing me to address counter arguments throughout.

Hello,

Rhetoric’s domain expanded greatly from Ancient Athens to the Roman Empire due to the vast size of the empire, but mainly because of the shift to the Holy Roman Empire. Education was a factor, but to understand the Christian faith, and the teachings in the Bible, people had to understand rhetoric. However, varying levels of expertise were still important.

For example, rhetoric when applied to the Christian faith at the individual level centers entirely around interpreting the truths of the Bible teachings correctly. Without understanding argumentation, evidence, and persuasion the Bibles teachings would be hard to understand. Therefore there was cultural need for  individuals to understand the use of words for teachings and truths.

On a more advanced level, priests or anybody giving a sermon, not only had to understand the extraction of truths from the Bible, but they had to understand how to phrase the Bible’s teachings into oratory that would make sense to the audience or congregation. This required a great deal of rhetoric study. However, this alone created a cultural issue.

The argument of knowledge in rhetoric was brought up yet again in reference to preachers truly understanding the “correct” truths of the bible. It was observed once again that words are slippery and can have a negative affect on the moral soul of the audience if the speaker does not have the correct knowledge and understanding.

Due to the shear size of the empire, and the dire need to understand word, oratory, and what arguments meant, rhetoric domain expanded greatly as it moved into the Christian/Holy Roman Empire world.

Hello,

In Greece rhetoric was used to move people away from religion, but in Christian Europe, rhetoric had found a new niche in preaching. For example, Augustine used oratory and written discourse to enhance his preaching and spreading of the gospel. In ancient Greece rhetoric is often blamed for the down fall of religion, where as now it was the main way to spread the gospel and the faith.

Another problem and difference is the lack of a wide spread use of rhetoric amongst the polis. Moving away from Greece, education of all classes in the use of rhetoric dropped off sharply and only gradually came back. The Roman empire eliminated the need for the polis to be able to voice their opinions, and therefore eliminated the need for rhetoric skills except amongst the upper class or government officials. Moving into Christian Europe this problem would improve, but only slightly as the use of rhetoric in the Christian faith became more and more important to members of the faith of the Holy Roman Empire.