On Rhetoric 1.4-15

"Topics for Rhetoric"

Commentary

CONTENTS:  

• Topics for Three Kinds of Rhetoric  (1.4-15)
  • Topics for  Deliberative Rhetoric  (1.4-8)
  • Topics for Epideitic Rhetoric ( 1.9)
  • Topics for Forensic Rhetoric (1.10-15) 
• Suggestions for Further Reading

Topics  for Three Kinds of Rhetoric  (1.4-15)

• The Greek word for topic, "topos,"  literally mean "a place."  In rhetoric, a topics are those places where a speaker can look  for the available means to persuade his audience (Kennedy 45).   Having stated that there are three different genres of rhetoric, Aristotle now proceeds to describe those topics in each of the different kinds of rhetoric that will be of use to the speaker.

A.  Topics for  Deliberative Rhetoric  (1.4-8)

• In 1.4 Aristotle observes that it is not necessary for the speaker to have familiarity about every conceivable topic.  Things that happen through necessity (e.g., the laws of physics) and what happen at random (matters of good or bad luck) are not subject to debate.  The topics that he must familiarize himself with are those in which human action can make some difference (1359b).
• In deliberative rhetoric these topics are generally of two kinds:  Political and ethical.

1.  Political Topics (1.4):

• Remember Deliberative Rhetoric is concerned about future actions that are either advantageous or disadvantageous.  In the political realm, why does the speaker need to have a least some familiarity with the above topics in order to be able to persuade his audience?

2.  Ethical Topics (1.5-7):

• One might ask why we have a discussion of ethics in this section?   Aristotle's argument for this move can be stated in the following way:
  • The end of deliberative rhetoric is what is advantageous.  
  • What is advantageous is what is good for human beings.
  • Happiness (eudaimonia) is universally recognized as the supreme good for human beings
  • Therefore we need to understand what happiness is before we can persuade anyone of what is advantageous to them.

• Aristotle's understanding of happiness can be summed up in the following way:
  • happiness is nothing more than virtue along with the possession of certain external goods 
  • These external goods include:  health, wealth, family, friends, good looks, reputation, comfort in one's old age, etc.
• Aristotle understands these goods to form a natural hierarchy [with some goods being more excellent than others] 
  • all rational human beings, he believes, would recognize this hierarchy.
• Therefore, knowing which goods are recognized as superior to others can help you to persuade an audience to follow a particular course of action (1.6-7)  

 B.  Topics for Epideitic Rhetoric (1.9)

• The end of epideitic rhetoric is the exhibition of a noble or base subject.  We, therefore, need to define what we mean by noble and base.
  • Aristotle defines the noble as that which is intrinsically good (i.e., good in itself; desired for its own sake) and praiseworthy
  • Since virtue is intrinsically good, it must be a noble thing.  
  • Therefore, the possession of such virtues as justice, courage, self-control, generosity and prudence makes a man noble.   
    • Since justice and courage are among the most praiseworthy of the virtues, the possession of these virtues in particular makes a person even more noble.
• To put it in simple terms, the possession of virtues makes a person noble in character and worthy of praise, while the possession of vices makes him base and worthy of disapprobation.

Amplification of Character:

• to effectively praise a subject, it is often necessary to amplify his/her qualities.  He can do this in either of two ways:

1. magnification of a person's virtues  (e.g., moderate courage becomes tremendous courage)
2. transforming vices into virtues  (e.g., a stubborn man becomes determined; a drunk becomes a fun-loving guy)

 C. Topics for Forensic Rhetoric  (1.10-15) 

• The aim of forensic rhetoric is either accusation (kategoria) or defense (apologia).   
  • To accuse or defend someone, the rhetoric must first have an understanding of the definition of injustice (adikia)   
  • We must understand what injustice is,  what its motives are, and what the state of mind is of someone who commits an unjust act.
• Aristotle defines Injustice as "voluntary illegal harm." (1.10).  An act of injustice, therefore, is always:

1. a voluntary act  (i.e.,, it is done freely and knowingly)
2. an act that causes harm     (i.e.., injury or damage to another's  property to person)
3. an act that is illegal   (i.e., it is done in violation of the laws of one's country)

• If I want to accuse someone of an act of injustice I must first demonstrate that the act was done voluntarily, that it caused some harm/damage, and that it was in violation of the law.
• Conversely, if I want to defend someone against a charge of injustice, then I must first prove that either (a) the act was not voluntary (e.g., because the accused was insane at the time he committed the act of injustice), or (b) that it produced no real harm (e.g., consentual S & M), or  (c)  that the act was not, in fact, illegal  (e.g., because it was done in self defense?)

• There are seven causes of all human action:  chance, nature, force, calculation, habit, anger, desire.  
  • Based upon the specific cause of an act, we can determine whether an act has been done voluntarily or involuntarily:

Involuntary Acts are those that are due to:

1. chance   (no observable cause:  e.g., spontaneous brawl at a soccer game)
2. nature    (cause is within and determined:  e.g., mental illness or retardation)
3. force      (against one's own desire:   e.g.,  Patty Hearst)

Voluntary acts are those that are due to:

1. calculation   (done with deliberation and planning:  e.g.,  first degree murder)
2. habit           (done through the repeated performance of an act:  e.g., drug use)
3. anger          (done out of the desire for revenge:   e.g.,  retaliating against an insult)
4. desire         (done for the sake of something pleasant:  e.g., rape)

Suggestions for Further Reading

• Cope, E.M.  An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric.  London: MacMillan, 1867.
• Garver, Euguene.  Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character.  Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1994.
• Hill, Forbes, "The Amorality of Aristotle's Rhetoric."  Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 22 (1981): 133-147.
• Kennedy, George A., trans. and intro.  Aristotle: On Rhetoric.  New York: Oxford UP, 1991.
• ---.  Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition.  2nd ed.  Chapel Hill, NC:  Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1999.
• Lanigan, Richard L. "Enthymeme:  The Rhetorical Species of Aristotle's Syllogism."  Southern Speech Communication Speech Communication Journal 39 (1974): 207-222.
• Rorty, Amelie O, ed.  Essays on Aristotle's Rhetoric.  Berkeley:  Univ. of California Press, 1996. 
• Rowland, Robert C. and Womack, Deanna F.  "Aristotle's View of Ethical Rhetoric."  Rhetoric Society Quartely 15.1-2 (1985): 13-31.
• Self, Lois S.  "Rhetoric and Phronesis: The Aristotelian Ideal."  Philosophy and Rhetoric 12 (1979): 130-145.

Department of Philosophy Home Page   |   Sophia Project Home Page   |   Aristotle Page

© 2000, M. Russo         For more information contact:  mrusso@molloy.edu