Dr. Lamp's Case For Tenure And Promotion

The idea of rhetoric has long been presented as something which is evil and should be done away with. The same goes with the idea of politics. Politics is understood to be something as bad, cunning, and misuse of power. Although, politics and rhetoric have some deeper similarities but when we look at them closely, we find that both appear in different lime light altogether when they are used for a good purpose combined with pious motive. No matter how hard we try, we cannot escape politics and rhetoric as they form the very basis of our daily routine life. Whether it is our mood, emotions, thoughts, writings, gestures, facial expressions, decision making ability, or even silence, we find it hard and nearly impossible to escape from the periphery

In the works we read this semester, we saw the progressive history of rhetoric. Like any other topic, this history is not static. Rhetoric went from being something despicable when it was first introduced to it being something that could perhaps work, then becomes suspicious again during the Enlightenment period, and finally being redeemed in the 20th century. Similarly, we also saw the transformation of the oral culture into the written culture and the implications that it had on rhetoric. Now, we are beginning to see another transformation involving the written culture and the digital culture. Just like the earlier implications caused by the first shift in cultures, this shift will also have significant

‘A text of timeless appeal is marked by effective construction of rhetoric to support its main ideas.’

While Henry’s speech was not particularly long, it packed quite the proverbial punch through its efficacious use of rhetoric and symbolism, and is looked to even today as an example of persuasive oratory. Throughout this paper, Henry’s rhetoric will be analyzed via an Aristotelian method of rhetorical analysis called the “rhetorical triangle.” According to an article on Study.com, written by Diedra Taylor, almost every form of rhetorical device can be categorized as one of the three points on this triangle: “Ethos,” “logos,” and “pathos.” While Aristotle, himself, did not originally postulate a triangular method of examination, he was the first influential intellectual to write about the three points previously mentioned, and because of this, the theory is credited to him. Taylor uses the analogy of a nacho chip to represent a particular piece of rhetoric, and toppings of guacamole, meat, and cheese to represent ethos, logos, and pathos, respectively. While a chip with only one or two of the toppings is still good, it is most delicious with all three in conjunction. The same is true of rhetoric; it is most persuasive when it contains a variety of the three types of devices, all working in concurrence with one another. In addition to this, it is very possible for some rhetorical anecdotes and devices to fall under the umbrella of more than one point on the triangle, but for the purposes of this paper, they will be examined one at a

In Grant Davie’s “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents,” he stresses the importance of both the rhetoric and the audience in various situations.

Bitzer gives 7 conditions to determine if a rhetorical situation exists. Based upon Bitzer’s seven fold criteria model, Paul’s letter can be classified as a rhetorical situation. It also can be classified as a rhetorical situation because it contains an exigence, and audience and constraints, the constituents of a rhetorical situation. Paul crafts this letter in response to his situation and uses rhetoric to persuade his audience to a certain course of action.

Rhetoric is a course in which students are taught the values of persuasion. And yet, behind this course is the utmost power to corrupt the world, changing it into a world of our own policies. This power, even though seldom discussed, has lead to many intriguing discoveries. One such discovery is how people are able to shape the world they live in simply by choosing the right words. Therefore those who would want the world to be a better place must protect this power. If in the wrong hands this power could cause serious damage. Several authors have striven to protect rhetoric and its power. Few agree on the matter of defining rhetoric, but they know that they must protect rhetoric from dark souls. A single definition of rhetoric must maintain a simplistic nature while incorporating every aspect of rhetoric. However, I argue that rhetoric is a means of persuading audiences of a situation and a particular reality through language and personal appeal. In order to prove this definition I will discuss how rhetoric creates a situation, the shaping of a different reality, the audience, the use of language, and the personal appeal. Finally, I will demonstrate the absolute need for rhetoric.

In A New History of Classical Rhetoric, George Kennedy talks about classical rhetoric from Greek Literature to the middle ages. The term rhetoric “denotes the civic art of public speaking as it developed in deliberative assemblies, law courts, and other formal occasions under constitutional government” (Kennedy 3). In the classical view, rhetoric has been living in our lives with natural instinct; however, philosophers, educators, and religious leaders have discovered more affective and exquisite rhetoric as rhetoric came into focus.

William Shakespeare’s cleverly crafted antagonist Iago in his play “Othello,” could undoubtedly be seen through most rhetorical theorist’s perspectives. The overlooked and bitter advisor of Othello who conceives and executes the demise of his commander through rhetorical means of persuasion is a character rich in depth of Aristotelian tradition. Aristotle, the 4th Century BC, Greek philosopher’s definition entitled “Rhetoric” charts a middle course between those of his predecessors. Plato, who views the art of rhetoric as merely illusion versus those of the Sophists who believed in a do what is necessary to win style of speech.

“As Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honor him; but, as he was ambitions, I slew him” (III. ii. 24-26)

Rhetoric is an art form created before the reign of Gorgias, by Aristotle. As time progressed throughout the ages, Aristotle taught the art of rhetoric to his student Socrates, who eventually taught it to Plato. The art gradually adapted into the rhetoric we use today, providing the reason as to why Plato chooses to recreate the account of Socrates and Gorgias’ discussion. Plato shows us how Socrates’ knowledge of proper usage of rhetoric is vaster than that of Gorgias’. He helps us visualize the various ways he uses rhetoric, to provide the reason for his ability to use rhetoric better than the other Orators. This is illuminated by Socrates’ use of pathos, in his argument of pain and pleasure, the use of ethos in speaking about the comparison of medicine and gymnastics, and his use of logos in his debate on the body and soul. Plato places special consideration into choosing the topics he highlights in the story because of Socrates innate ability to refute these topics the way does.

The play Julius Caesar is deeply rooted in Shakespeare’s characteristic methods of rhetoric and persuasion. This play is primarily driven by the technique of persuasion when Cassius has convinced Brutus that must die. This sets the story in motion; however, the plot ending is determined by Antony’s speech to the people. Shakespeare’s method of rhetoric has been the most powerful usage of words and writing, creating the opportunity to collapse kingdoms and rise anew. Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar scrutinizes the power of rhetoric by rivaling two speeches, Brutus verses Mark Antony. In the end, it is shown that Antony’s rhetoric to be clearly greater as his effect on the people’s receival is supportive.

The use of compelling language is an essential part of any speaker’s success, as shown in William Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Antony’s funeral oration creates tension between the plebeians and the conspirators, leading to war and chaos. In Brutus’ speech, he references the consequences of Caesar’s reign had he lived, convincing the plebeians of his “noble” actions. While Brutus uses logic and rationale to state his case, Antony uses a sentimental and moralistic approach. Marc Antony, though thought of as a sycophant, is angry at Brutus and the conspirators for killing Caesar. Through the use of ethos and pathos, Marc Antony is successful in convincing the crowd of plebeians that Brutus’ claims to end Caesar’s life are unjustified.

In the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, Mark Antony is depicted as a better leader than Brutus, due to his cunning use of rhetoric when addressing the plebeians after Caesar’s death. This essay will be divided into two sections to explore the ways in which Antony is depicted as better leader. The First section will contextualise the extracts used for analysis, and compare Brutus’s pedestrian speech with Mark Antony’s impressive oratory. This will be done by defining what rhetoric is, and how it is used by Antony to win over the plebeians in comparison with Brutus. The second section will use examples taken from Machiavelli’s The Prince, in order to establish that Mark Antony is depicted as a better leader.

Cassius, Brutus, and Antony use rhetoric successfully in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, albeit each differently and for different causes. Each of these men uses his skills in rhetoric to convince each other and at some points the entire population of Rome to follow his beliefs. However, each of these men has different motivations to do so, as well as different characteristics and general worldviews.