Call us toll-free

Quick academic help

Don't let the stress of school get you down! Have your essay written by a professional writer before the deadline arrives.

Calculate the price

Pages:

275 Words

$19,50

Differentiating Between Epideictic and Deliberative Rhetoric

Of course, Aristotle's rhetoric covers non-argumentative tools of persuasion as well. He tells the orator how to stimulate emotions andhow to make himself credible (see below ); his art of rhetoric includes considerations about delivery and style (see below ) and the parts of a speech. It is understandable that several interpreters found an insoluble tension between the argumentative means of pertinent rhetoric and non-argumentative tools that aim at what is outside the subject. It does not seem, however, that Aristotle himself saw a major conflict between these diverse tools ofpersuasion—presumably for the following reasons: (i) He leaves no doubt that the subject that is treated in a speech has the highestpriority (e.g. Rhet. III.1, 1403b18–27). Thus, it is not surprising that there are even passages that regard the non-argumentative tools as a sort of accidental contribution to the process of persuasion, which essentially proceeds in the manner of dialectic (cp. Rhet. I.1, 1354a15). (ii) There are, he says (III.1, 1404a2f.), methods that are not right, but necessary because of certain deficiencies of the audience. His point seems to be that the argumentative method becomes less effective, the worse the condition of the audience is. This again is to say that it is due to the badness of the audience when his rhetoric includes aspects that are not in line with the idea of argumentative and pertinent rhetoric. (iii) In dealing with methods of traditional rhetoric, Aristotle obviously assumes that even methods that have traditionallybeen used instead of argumentation can be refined so that they support the aim of an argumentative style of rhetoric. The prologue of a speech, for example, was traditionally used for appeals to the listener, but it can also be used to set out the issue of the speech,thus contributing to its clearness. Similarly, the epilogue has traditionally been used to arouse emotions like pity or anger; but assoon as the epilogue recalls the conclusions reached, it will make the speech more understandable.

Need essay sample on "Differentiating Between Epideictic and Deliberative Rhetoric"

The structure of Rhet. I & II is determined by two tripartite divisions. The first division consists in the distinction among the three means of persuasion: The speech can produce persuasion either through the character of the speaker, the emotionalstate of the listener, or the argument (logos) itself (see below ). The second tripartite division concerns the three species of public speech. The speech that takes place in the assembly is defined as thedeliberative species. In this rhetorical species, the speaker either advises the audience to do something or warns against doing something. Accordingly, the audience has to judge things that are going to happen in the future, and they have to decide whether these future events are good or bad for the polis, whether they will cause advantage or harm. The speech that takes place before a court is defined as the judicial species. The speaker either accuses somebody or defends herself or someone else. Naturally, this kind of speech treats things that happened in the past. The audience or rather jury has to judge whether a past event was just or unjust, i.e., whether it was according to the law or contrary to the law. While the deliberative and judicial species have their context in a controversial situation in which the listener has to decide in favor of one of two opposing parties, the third species does not aim at such a decision: the epideictic speech praises or blames somebody, ittries to describe things or deeds of the respective person as honorable or shameful.

Examples of epideictic rhetoric ..

Deliberative rhetoric typically deals mostly with future events, and their benefits or harms to society.

However, in the rhetorical context there are two factors that the dialectician has to keep in mind if she wants to become a rhetoriciantoo, and if the dialectical argument is to become a successful enthymeme. First, the typical subjects of public speech do not—as the subject of dialectic and theoretical philosophy—belong to the things that are necessarily the case, but are among those things that are the goal of practical deliberation and can also be otherwise. Second, as opposed to well-trained dialecticians the audience of public speech is characterized by an intellectual insufficiency; above all, the members of a jury or assembly are not accustomed to following a longer chain of inferences. Therefore enthymemes must not be as precise as a scientific demonstration and should be shorter than ordinary dialectical arguments. This, however, is not to say that theenthymeme is defined by incompleteness and brevity. Rather, it is a sign of a well-executed enthymeme that the content and the number of its premises are adjusted to the intellectual capacities of the public audience; but even an enthymeme that failed to incorporate these qualities would still be enthymeme.

(a) The persuasion is accomplished by character whenever the speech is held in such a way as to render the speaker worthy of credence. Ifthe speaker appears to be credible, the audience will form the second-order judgment that propositions put forward by the credible speaker are true or acceptable. This is especially important in caseswhere there is no exact knowledge but room for doubt. But how does the speaker manage to appear a credible person? He must display (i) practical intelligence (phronêsis), (ii) a virtuous character, and (iii) good will (Rhet. II.1, 1378a6ff.); for,if he displayed none of them, the audience would doubt that he is able to give good advice at all. Again, if he displayed (i) without (ii) and (iii), the audience could doubt whether the aims of the speaker are good. Finally, if he displayed (i) and (ii) without (iii), the audience could still doubt whether the speaker gives the best suggestion, though he knows what it is. But if he displays all of them, Aristotle concludes, it cannot rationally be doubted that his suggestions are credible. It must be stressed that the speaker must accomplish these effects by what he says; it is not necessary that he is actually virtuous: on the contrary, a preexisting good character cannot be part of the technical means of persuasion.

what a epideictic rhetoric - 1112833 ..

Blair. epideictic rhetoric essay . essay on quality assurance in education

The idea of a culture of people selling and eating children will influence the emotions of most people.
A Modest Proposal
Rhetorical Analysis:
Rhetorical Analysis:
Rhetorical Analysis:
Genre:
The genre of rhetoric in which "A Modest Propsal" best fits, is deliberative--as opposed to forensic or epideictic.

The first book of the Rhetoric treats the three species in succession. Rhet. I.4–8 deals with the deliberative, I.9 with the epideictic, I.10–14 the judicial species. These chapters are understood as contributing to the argumentative mode of persuasion or—more precisely—to that part of argumentative persuasion that is specific to the respective species of persuasion. The second part of the argumentative persuasion that is common to all three species of rhetorical speech is treated in thechapters II.19–26. The second means of persuasion, which works by evoking the emotions of the audience, is described in the chaptersII.2–11. Though the following chapters II.12–17 treat different types of character these chapters do not, as is often assumed, develop the third means of persuasion, which depends on the character of the speaker. The underlying theory of this means of persuasion is elaborated in a few lines of chapter II.1. The aforementioned chapters II.12–17 give information about different types of character and their disposition to emotional response, which can be useful for those speakers who want to arouse the emotions of the audience. Why the chapters on the argumentative means of persuasion are separated by the treatment of emotions and character (in II.2–17) remains a riddle, especially since the chapter II.18 tries to give a link between the specific and the common aspects of argumentative persuasion. Rhetoric III.1–12 discusses several questions of style (see below ), Rhetoric III.13–19 is on the several parts of a speech.

There are three types of rhetoric employed: epideictic, judicial, and deliberative
Order now
  • UNMATCHED QUALITY

    As soon as we have completed your work, it will be proofread and given a thorough scan for plagiarism.

  • STRICT PRIVACY

    Our clients' personal information is kept confidential, so rest assured that no one will find out about our cooperation.

  • COMPLETE ORIGINALITY

    We write everything from scratch. You'll be sure to receive a plagiarism-free paper every time you place an order.

  • ON-TIME DELIVERY

    We will complete your paper on time, giving you total peace of mind with every assignment you entrust us with.

  • FREE CORRECTIONS

    Want something changed in your paper? Request as many revisions as you want until you're completely satisfied with the outcome.

  • 24/7 SUPPORT

    We're always here to help you solve any possible issue. Feel free to give us a call or write a message in chat.

Order now

Epideictic Rhetoric _____ It is a essay or a speech that blames ..

Aristotle joins Plato in criticizing contemporary manuals of rhetoric. But how does he manage to distinguish his own project from the criticized manuals? The general idea seems to be this: Previous theorists of rhetoric gave most of their attention to methods outsidethe subject; they taught how to slander, how to arouse emotions in the audience, or how to distract the attention of the hearers from the subject. This style of rhetoric promotes a situation in which juries and assemblies no longer form rational judgments about the given issues, but surrender to the litigants. Aristotelian rhetoric is different in this respect: it is centered on the rhetorical kind of proof, the enthymeme (see below ), which is called the most important means of persuasion. Since people are most strongly convinced when they suppose that something has beenproven (Rhet. I.1, 1355a5f.), there is no need for the orator to confuse or distract the audience by the use of emotional appeals, etc. In Aristotle's view an orator will be even more successful when he just picks up the convincing aspects of a given issue, thereby using commonly-held opinions as premises. Since peoplehave a natural disposition for the true (Rhet. I.1, 1355a15f.) and every man has some contribution to make to the truth (Eudemian Ethics I.6, 1216b31,) there is no unbridgeable gapbetween the commonly-held opinions and what is true. This alleged affinity between the true and the persuasive justifies Aristotle's project of a rhetoric that essentially relies on the persuasiveness of pertinent argumentation; and it is just this argumentative character of Aristotelian rhetoric that explains the close affinity between rhetoric and dialectic (see above ).

Epideictic Rhetoric In The Service Of War: George W. …

By suggesting a new trend for Irish families in order to benefit overall soceity, Swift clearly intended this piece to fit into the genre of deliberative rhetoric.
A Modest Proposal
Rhetorical Analysis:
Kairos:
The fact that Swift writes about what was, in his time, a current issue, his kairos is at a peak.

Order now
  • You submit your order instructions

  • We assign an appropriate expert

  • The expert takes care of your task

  • We send it to you upon completion

Order now
  • 37 684

    Delivered orders

  • 763

    Professional writers

  • 311

    Writers online

  • 4.8/5

    Average quality score

Order now
  • Kim

    "I have always been impressed by the quick turnaround and your thoroughness. Easily the most professional essay writing service on the web."

  • Paul

    "Your assistance and the first class service is much appreciated. My essay reads so well and without your help I'm sure I would have been marked down again on grammar and syntax."

  • Ellen

    "Thanks again for your excellent work with my assignments. No doubts you're true experts at what you do and very approachable."

  • Joyce

    "Very professional, cheap and friendly service. Thanks for writing two important essays for me, I wouldn't have written it myself because of the tight deadline."

  • Albert

    "Thanks for your cautious eye, attention to detail and overall superb service. Thanks to you, now I am confident that I can submit my term paper on time."

  • Mary

    "Thank you for the GREAT work you have done. Just wanted to tell that I'm very happy with my essay and will get back with more assignments soon."

Ready to tackle your homework?

Place an order