A Teleological Interpretation of the Applicability of Rhetoric in the Peripatetic Tradition

• Authors: Gondek Maria Joanna
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

For Aristotle, the classification of the audience is the basis of distinguishing the main genres of rhetoric. Due to the auditor receiving political, judicial or educational content, there is a distinction into deliberative, judicial, and epideictic rhetoric. There are three more specific ends of rhetoric connected with the three basic types of auditors. Due to the communicative character of rhetoric, these ends are achieved against the background of the relation to the subject of the speech, referring to the decisions made by the auditor. Deliberative rhetoric is speech or writing that attempts to persuade an audience to take (or not to take) some action. The specific end of this rhetorical genre is good. Judicial rhetoric is speech or writing that considers the justice or injustice of a certain charge or accusation. Epideictic rhetoric is speech or writing that praises (encomium) or blames (invective). Persuasion in rhetoric happens because of a specific end: goodness, justice, nobility. Thus, the specific nature of the end of persuasion is taken into account. Perceiving the end against the background of the subject of persuasion allows one to develop a method. The method that determines the applicability of rhetoric occurs in the tradition of peripatetic rhetoric in a non-autonomous way, but is closely related to the end and to the subject of speech.

Keywords

EN

Aristotle; end; deliberative rhetoric; judicial rhetoric; epideictic rhetoric

• Publisher: International Étienne Gilson Society
• Journal: Studia Gilsoniana
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 7
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 181-199

Dates

published

2018-06-30

Contributors

author

Gondek Maria Joanna

• John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland

References

• Ackrill, J. L. Essays on Plato and Aristotle. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
• Aristotelis. Opera, vol. II. Ex recensione I. Bekkeri. Editio 2 quam curavit O. Gigon. Berolini 1960–1961.
• Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackman. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956.
• Aristotle. Politics. Translated by H. Rackman. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959.
• Aristotle. Rhetorica. Translated by William Rhys Roberts. In The Works of Aristotle, vol. 11. Edited by William D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949.
• Aristotle. Rhetoric I: A Commentary. Edited by William M. A. Grimaldi. New York: Fordham University Press, 1980.
• Broadie, Alexander. “Aristotle on Rational Action.” Phronesis 19, no. 1 (1974): 70–80.
• Crowley, Sharon. “A Plea for the Revival of Sophistry.” Rhetoric Review 7, no. 2 (Spring 1989): 318–333.
• Grimaldi, William M. A. Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1972.
• Irwin, Terence H. “Ethics in the Rhetoric and in the Ethics,” 142–174. In Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Edited by Amélie O. Rorty. Berkeley, Ca.: University of California Press, 1996.
• Johnstone, Christopher L. “An Aristotelian Trilogy: Ethics, Rhetoric, Politics and the Search for Moral Truth.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 13, no. 1 (1980): 1–24.
• Lunsford, Andrea A., Lisa S. Ede. “On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric,” 37–49. In Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Edited by Robert J. Connors, Lisa S. Ede, Andrea A. Lunsford. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984.
• Quintilianus. Institutio oratoria, vol. 1–7. Edited by J. Cousin. Paris: CUF, 1975–1980.

Identifiers

ISSN

2300-0066

ISSN

2577-0314

DOI

10.26385/SG.070209