Rhetoric
According to Aristotle, rhetoric is "the ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion" (as cited in “A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals”). Rhetoric is much like court because it has a defendant, a judge, and a jury. The rhetorician, who argues either for or against an issue to prove his or her point, must try to persuade both the judge and the jury by following the "laws" of Aristotle's rhetoric (Rapp, 2010). In rhetoric, Aristotle viewed the reader as being either a "mere spectator," or a judge, of either the past or future (Garver, 2009, p. 3). The rhetorician, on the other hand, is an individual who always finds persuasive means to convince readers in every case (Rapp, 2010). Although it is nearly impossible to convince everyone, rhetoricians have the ability to persuade even the toughest of minds and, perhaps, hearts.
Rhetoric, in order to be truly persuasive, must follow Aristotle’s “laws” of rhetoric consisting of credibility, emotions, and logical proofs because Aristotle believed that rhetoric could persuade either through the character of the rhetorician, the emotions of the audience, or the logic of the argument in itself. While Aristotle noted that his philosophy on rhetoric could certainly be misused and manipulated to persuade, he insisted that it would be easier to simply use it for good to ethically persuade (Rapp, 2010). Further, Aristotle noted that, in rhetoric, some hints are essential and others are merely accessories. The essentials are the materials that prove a point, whereas the accessories do not. The accessories, such as gaining the audience’s attention and delivering an argument well, are not essential because rhetorical persuasion can occur without them. In contrast, the essentials are what delivers the audience to persuasion: "Only the proofs belong to the art, everything else is accessory… they mainly treat of what is irrelevant to the subject at hand" (as cited in Dow, 2007, p. 397)!
Rhetoric, in order to be truly persuasive, must follow Aristotle’s “laws” of rhetoric consisting of credibility, emotions, and logical proofs because Aristotle believed that rhetoric could persuade either through the character of the rhetorician, the emotions of the audience, or the logic of the argument in itself. While Aristotle noted that his philosophy on rhetoric could certainly be misused and manipulated to persuade, he insisted that it would be easier to simply use it for good to ethically persuade (Rapp, 2010). Further, Aristotle noted that, in rhetoric, some hints are essential and others are merely accessories. The essentials are the materials that prove a point, whereas the accessories do not. The accessories, such as gaining the audience’s attention and delivering an argument well, are not essential because rhetorical persuasion can occur without them. In contrast, the essentials are what delivers the audience to persuasion: "Only the proofs belong to the art, everything else is accessory… they mainly treat of what is irrelevant to the subject at hand" (as cited in Dow, 2007, p. 397)!