The Species of Rhetoric | Aristotle's Rhetoric pt. 3

[@johnwheeler4791]

Thank you, another well done presentation. You have honed the provisional skill of a meaty presentation without being loquacious. I appreciate you enunciating the utility of both philosophy and rhetoric, especially rhetoric as it does tend to get attached to sophistry. Regarding the duty of rhetoric, Aristotle makes clear the utilitarian function. He states, "in the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning". You're doing a great service, highly recognized.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks--that means a lot!

[@sbolling1]

Nice and succinct (and not boring) - great intro for my Rhetoric students!

[@WritingwithAndrew]

That's the goal! Thanks for the kind words--and for giving me a place in your classroom!

[@ElliotBrownJingles]

"Rhetoric isn't engaged in the same search for absolute truth as philosophy but that's just because it's more interested in getting things done with the truths we already have". I had never thought about it like that. (A cure for the inaction of Hamlet?).

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Interesting thought--of course, I'd like to think that rhetoric is a cure for whatever ails a person!

[@benmortimer]

So im a bit muddled, audiences can be in a lawcourt for example specifically deliberative, but it seems necessary that all three forms are to be used to create persuasion. Is there a sense of inappropriate audiences for rhetorical style, for example, a debate where no real decisions and stakes present, will it regress to being epideitic? In a lawcourt a style could be entirely epideitic, when really it should be deliberative, but it can only be deliberative if it properly explains the factors at hand in a judicial manner, and what exactly is epideitic in this context? Yes the definitions are a bit vague. I think its interesting to apply with common debate scenarios (think the debating Union) where noone has to actually make a meaningful decision, meaning that rhetoric will have a tendency to become entirely epideictic, and superficiality. So what I'm suggesting is rhetoric in contexts without stakes will regress to epideictic superficiality. We can persuade (deliberative), justify (judicial, and delight (epideictic), but in the wrong context it seems necessary that all the rhetoric, even if superficially not epideictic, will in fact be merely foamy verbiage. just ordered kenneth burkes rhetoric of religion as it keeps popping up in what im reading

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Epideictic may be showier--but I'd lean away from calling it superficial since, at least as Aristotle writes about it, it clearly serves a social/political purpose. As for debate without real stakes, Burke writes about "pure persuasion," persuasion for its own sake. Have fun with the Rhetoric of Religion!

[@daniilhuliayeu2487]

Makes me feel sad about never having a proper course on rhetoric

[@WritingwithAndrew]

I hear you--I stumbled into rhetoric by accident, but I do wish more of us A) found it and B) not by accident 😅

[@daniilhuliayeu2487]

Well, at least I'm lucky enough to have stumbled into your channel Thank you for great content!

[@ifsowhynot]

"A friend of the show, *name of* Kenneth Burke ... " I'm sitting here wondering whether this wasn't a bit of subtle homage to Dr. Steve Brule?

[@WritingwithAndrew]

...I don't have to say anything... I'm a doctor too...

[@xoroxtor]

Fantastic 😊 New yet far batter

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Thanks!

[@jonathanlochridge9462]

Interesting. So, it seems like Epideictic Rhetoric would be the type most useful for fiction writers. And to an extent might also relate to the use of wordplay in comedy. It also seems like a profoundly useful form to learn that people don't seem to be educated on typically. At least, for me most of my attempts to get better at writing of that sort have been self-directed. A Job interview or a cover letter are probably the most obvious example of such a form of writing in todays world. Although, maybe to an extent it has become less significant?

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Very interesting--I like the insights! I'd be willing to say that formal epideictic displays (going to watch someone speak at a funeral) have gone by the wayside, but you're right that it's still alive and well in different forms. I don't think you'd have to spend much time online to find people hyping up others or excoriating them. I also really think that you're onto something when it comes to fiction writers--I'm trained as a poet, and I think most (if not all) poetry is primarily epideictic. I don't see why fiction wouldn't or couldn't be the same

[@jonathanlochridge9462]

@@WritingwithAndrew Interesting. Poetry is pretty cool. I have recently been reading through "the poets handbook" by Judson Jerome. I am not too far into it but I have been reading a little each day. I think poetry is interesting. But, overall I kind of care more about how to use what I learn from poetry in other areas of dialogue. I have done a bit of poetry off and on. But, I generally find writing it on command to be a bit difficult. But, sometimes when I notice something interesting crude but okay sounding poetry tends to spring from my heart. Which I sometimes refine to be a bit more proper. Looking for the closest structure I can adopt to make it work. I usually then set them to music. Since, I am an amature musician. Although, I don't care enough about music to actually practice it anymore. I spent a ton of time on it as a kid. Another area I have been looking into is comedy. Overall, it seems to be a field of communication that is mostly only seen on video or orally. With a little bit in visual mediums. (I suspect comics are literally named after comedies, but I am not sure about the etymology.) However, there are some comic stories that are pretty good that are meant to be read I have found. But, jokes and comedy seems like an interesting area to play with words. That sort of has an easy to measure standard of quality. "Is it funny?" But, I am trying to find different areas to apply the core skills of writing that I can practice to improve my skills practically. From what I have heard, Aristotle looks at Comedies as part of his study of Poetics. But, primarily looks at it just as a type of theatre. And it had a more particular meaning then than just a show or story with an objective of being funny. I haven't actually read Aristotles Poetics though. I have considered it. But considering it was originally written in greek and what I have found about it. I am unsure if what it says is likely to actually help me when it comes to using the tools of language more effectively?

[@jonathanlochridge9462]

@@WritingwithAndrew More on topic, do you know of any resources or books that go into more detail about the art of epideictic rhetoric? Or that use that lens when it comes to looking at writing poetry or fiction? (My other post is more of a big blob of stuff. Kind of lazy writing. But, I wasn't really sure how to tighten it up without really diving into it. Maybe I should have though.)

[@WritingwithAndrew]

@@jonathanlochridge9462 Lots of good thoughts here. Three cheers for poetry--I may be biased, but I've heard other writers say that writing poetry will improve your other writing like nothing else can. Comedy is an interesting things--I think writers tend to use the term humor. For whatever reason, people who write funny things (like books and essays) are called humorists rather than comedians. As for the Poetics, I don't know. It could be worth a skim--it is definitely more interested in Greek drama. I always want it to be more useful than it is when I read it, but I do remember one of my college creative writing teachers citing rules from it--so it still has some staying power.

[@WritingwithAndrew]

@@jonathanlochridge9462 No worries--nothing comes to mind that deals with epideictic rhetoric specifically, but it is commonly discussed by rhetorical theorists. This isn't a direct answer to your question, but I always find myself coming back to the work of Richard Lanham. I like his take on rhetoric and style--and I think it has good application to poetry (he even put poets and rhetoricians in the same category of people who play with language--as opposed to those grim philosophers who just wish language would be less malleable)

[@callmewhoever]

You're offically my new english teacher

[@WritingwithAndrew]

Yes! I'm honored to assume the role lol!