Customer Reviews

The Art of Rhetoric (Penguin Classics)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As an old philospohy student trying to break back into the topics I found this to be a nice intro to the philospohical study of Rhetoric.

The authors notes and chapter summaries are very helpful, making me look for other works he has translated. Also has large book intro which briefly outlines the formation of Rhetoric in Attic times, noting several other Greek orators and their works for additional reading.

How could you not give this book five stars? Aristotle's Rhetoric contains the greatness of an all-time classic and I shall praise the book following Aristotle's instructions on how to praise something (1. 9). The Rhetoric is either the first or among the first books that teaches a speaker how to address an audience. It comes from the time of great scholarly activity in Ancient Greece and clearly exceeds one's expectations. Every page is consistently insightful and each paragraph teaches something new about human nature. We should invent an "Aristotelian Rhetoric" award and give it to speakers who are trying their best to persuade an audience. Finally, Aristotle compares to Shakespeare when it comes to clarifying the deepest and most obvious concerns we all have as human persons.

The translation of Lawson-Tancred is very readable and clear. His notes before each chapter makes one's reading of the Rhetoric smooth and enjoyable. Two things made me sad when I first opened the book: the chapters have been re-organized and I am depending on the Bekker numbers (ex. 1354a1) to find my way in other texts and the font is kind of tiny. But I do understand that the re-organized chapters logically follow the text and the tiny font becomes easier to read and allows for a modest-sized tome.

Aristotle writes that we pity the person who cannot enjoy a good thing, and a person who cannot enjoy the Rhetoric certainly ought to be pitied.

Both the introduction and the translation by Hugh Lawson-Tancred are very much below the standard one expects from Penguin. Most importantly, the English of the translation is frequently incomprehensible. I advise everyone who wants to study this masterpiece of a book to use another edition, e.g. that of George Kennedy, published by Oxford in 1991, or the Loeb edition. That is, if you want to understand why so many people in so many ages found this book brilliant!

As a trial lawyer and a pragmatist, I've long dismissed philosophy as the useless art of contemplating one's navel. That assessment began to change recently when I audited a continuing legal education seminar in which the speaker analyzed trial advocacy on the model of Aristotle's "Rhetoric." His speech was brief and his analysis superficial, but he'd aroused my curiosity. I got this book and read it.

The general principles Aristotle formulated for forensic rhetoric over 2,000 years ago still hold true in the 21st century courtroom. Some of the specifics have changed (e.g. no torture for slave witnesses), but human nature hasn't, and human persuasion hasn't, either. Aristotle's "Rhetoric" should be required reading for all first year law students. I regret not reading it 30 years ago. Apparently philosphers do more than just stare at their navels.

Rhetoric sounds dubious. Is it concerned about convincing people of what you think is right for you but not necessarily good for the person you want to convince. Is it about selling your ideas to gain power or wealth by overwhelming your audience with false arguments convincingly presented?
Aristotle tries to solve this dilemma insisting that all persuasion should be with the intention of making a contribution to happiness by furthering virtuous behavior. He also presents the methods you should use to convince people to believe you. I find the book useful from both points of view.
Aristotle explains very clearly that to be persuasive you have to be rational and have the ability to understand and arouse emotions of the audience in your favor.
The book was written as a kind of handbook to be used 2400 years ago. Most of it, but not all is still valid to day. It has become a common practice to use PowerPoint presentations to convince people. The method of Aristotle is about content, structure, logic and emotions. Some slides may still be useful, but if you really want to be successful you better focus on the content using Aristotle type argumentation. All people that have to make speeches or presentations will find a wealth of ideas in this book. I found it a pity that the book does not contain complete speeches of Aristotle. The book should be of special interest to politicians and leaders in business that have to address large audiences with somecritical and skeptical members.

As Hugh Lawson-Tancred states in his introduction to this volume, "It would be hard to deny that the ability to persuade, convince, cajole, or win round is one of the most useful skills in human life." That was as true when Aristotle wrote "The Art of Rhetoric" in ancient Greece as it is in Western culture today.

Aristotle urges orators to take human nature into account when preparing speeches, and consequently discusses many aspects of human nature and character, the stages of life and their characteristics, virtues, justice, and crime and punishment.

Many things about argument have not changed over the millennia; for instance, Aristotle recommends arguing for some greater, universal good when the written law is contrary to your own position, but when the written law is in accord with your position, he counsels that you argue that best judgment means adhering to the written law.

Aristotle also offers methods for establishing proof and provides tips on style when speaking. "The Art of Rhetoric" is a timeless classic, offering great insights into psychology and the human condition. It offers important benefits to the prospective reader--knowing how pop culture figures, preachers, politicians, and other public figures seek to influence others would make the reader not just a better speaker, but a much more discerning listener as well.

I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Definition of Rhetoric- capacity of persuasion. Plato is critical of the Rhetoric and the tragic poetry. Rhetoric is approach to political public speeches in the forum. Plato thought that they clouded the mind and thus created a part of his critique of democracy in general. Plato thinks Socrates was killed by rhetoric used by the Athenian democracy. Plato feared the danger of democracy. Poetry appeals to the base human emotions rhetoric, and poetry block rational truth according to Plato. Rhetoric is psychological force of language vs. logical force of language. Psychology leads people to believe things based on emotions. Speech must appeal to the masses in a democracy. Psychology is persuasion, logic is truth. Deduction and induction is arguing logically. Plato says rhetoric is not a technç, (craft) nor is poetry, because they are undisciplined and not uniform in design. Thus, appeal to psychology and emotion can never be done away with in a democracy, thus Plato abhors them and democracy. Plato calls it sophistry this psychological appeal and democracy requires this to exist, so the problem persists. Plato is clear and consistent in his abhorrence of sophistry and democracy.

Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics are an alternative to Plato. Aristotle's rhetoric tries to strike a middle position. Aristotle says rhetoric and poetry are a technç, the Rhetoric is a handbook. Aristotle says speaker needs to appeal to appropriate information for the particular setting. Much like a lawyer's argument, not just relying on facts, need to appeal to people's emotions. Aristotle does understand that rhetoric can be used in a harmful way.

Aristotle lays out three features in rhetoric:
1. Ethos= character of the speaker, also charisma, speaker earns the audience's trust, use of body language.
2. Pathos= condition of the hearer.
3. Logos= essential bearing on political persuasion, truth.

Thus, Plato's concern by definition excludes speech because it deals with emotion. These three conditions must be in play for a speech to be successful. The rhetoric contains a detailed analysis of the different human emotions and how to elicit them in a speech. Aristotle knows the speaker must be a good student of human nature to tap into human emotions.

Epistçmç is scientific knowledge. Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul for using education, experience and habit all this is in the ethics. This is the same in political world so politics is not an episteme no scientific reasoning. The things that come up in politics are not deduced scientifically. In politics, humans use deliberation between several possible outcomes unlike math where there is only one correct answer. Political speech is contentious because the nature of politics is contentious.

There are two circumstances in rhetoric.
1. Judicial rhetoric has to do with the past like in a court case.
2. Deliberative rhetoric has to do with the future, what decision should we make in political policies.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

The content of this book is a key to modern democracy understanding, and the art of persuasiveness. The kind of book that you want to make sure your child will read in the future. I couldn't put it away. This is a fundamental to read prior to address other modern deliberation books. You would appreciate Cicero political speeches better.

a challenging and interesting book, rhetoric is a subject with which I am just becoming familiar. I never knew this was a subject but it puzzles me why its not in the curriculum in primary/elementary and secondary/high schools.

It may be tough for secondary students so read an easier book if you are intimated by challenging writing, but make sure to get this book to read after you've primed yourself well.

Aristotle proved too much for me in this book. As a person who really has no background in Philosophy this was a tough read. He just seemed to be stating the same points over and over. This is not the book to start with if you are interested in Greek thought.