According to Aristotle (384 BC in Stagirus, Macedonia, Greece, to 322 BC in Chalcis, Euboea, Greece), Rhetoric served a counterpart to dialectic, dialectic being rationality or logic. As a whole, his collective concerns are quite concentrated and extensive. He bestowed more knowledge to Western academia than any other individual or group. That is why the knowledge he provided is taught in an abundance of scholastic forums to this day. In concern to rhetoric, to follow suit, though Aristotle favored rhetoric more in a scientific regard, he is responsible for shaping and fully developing the art of rhetoric. In other words, despite that Rhetoric is far more than a science, it chiefly upholds a scientific regard.
Accordingly, neither rhetoric nor dialectic are dependent on the principles of certain sciences; it is “the ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion” (Henning). The study of Rhetoric holds significance in these concerns:
Ethos: this is the credibility of the individual source, the Ethical Appeal of the speaker’s or author’s authority or “Voice” (Neel).
This is the character of the speaker, or magnetism and charm including use of body language; this is what earns the trust of the audience.
Pathos: the emotional or motivational appeals which alters the condition of the hearer, including vivid language, emotional language, and all sensory details.
Logos: this constitutes the logic, or at least the essential persuasive measure used to support a claim, as this also concerns the facts and statistics used to help support the argument. Simply put, this is the crucial weight or “truth” of any political persuasion. More notably, this concerns Induction and Deduction.
To individually define these measures of Logos: with Deduction, the specific or particular is inferred from the general; in Induction, the general is inferred from the specific. Here are examples.
Aristotle’s Reasoning by Archie Bunker
The first is an example of a hasty generalization; a “Hasty generalization is a weak inductive argument, one that often serves to solidify prejudicial stereotypes” (Leclerk).
Induction: From the omniscience of “Professor Archie Bunker,” here’s a perfect example (as listed on “Fallacies of Weak Induction”): Archie Bunker, character in the 1970s TV program All in the Family: What has the world come to? My son-in-law, Meathead the Pollock, is an unpatriotic, lazy, longhaired, idiotic idealist. You can cry political correctness all you want—you’re probably a pinko commie anyway—but the implication is obvious to anyone with old-fashioned common sense. Put simply, Pollocks are idiotic idealists (Leclerk).
Deduction: Every time Archie referred to anyone who criticizes or does not agree with the United States president as a “commie pinko,” he was using Deductive Reasoning.
“Faith is believin’ things nobody in his right mind oughta believe!”
Sources:
Neel, Jasper P. Aristotle’s Voice: Rhetoric, Theory, and Writing in America. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1994.
Leclerk, Paul. Fallacies of Weak Induction. Community College of Rhode Island. 400 East Avenue, Warwick, Rhode Island 02886-1807. 24 February 2004. [http://faculty.ccri.edu/paleclerc/logic/fallacies_wi.shtml]
Publication Information: Book Title: Aristotle’s Voice: Rhetoric, Theory, and Writing in America. Contributors: Jasper Neel - author. Publisher: Southern Illinois University Press. Place of Publication: Carbondale, IL. Publication Year: 1994. Page Number: iv.
Henning, Martha L. Friendly Persuasion: Classical Rhetoric–Now! Draft Manuscript. August, 1998. [http://www.millikin.edu/wcenter/workshop7b.html]
