Aristotle’s Rhetoric on Rhetoric’s Definition and Limits
Since the art of rhetoric cannot be defined by a scientific definition by genus and differentia, Aristotle instead explicates rhetoric by setting it off from four competitors: (1) the so-called art of the handbook writers, who neglected the enthymeme, (2) scientific argument that sometimes occurs...
Сохранить в:
| Главный автор: | |
|---|---|
| Формат: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Язык: | Français |
| Опубликовано: |
2018
|
| Online-ссылка: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Итог: | Since the art of rhetoric cannot be defined by a scientific definition by genus and differentia, Aristotle
instead explicates rhetoric by setting it off from four competitors: (1) the so-called art of the handbook
writers, who neglected the enthymeme, (2) scientific argument that sometimes occurs when one is
trying to argue rhetorically but hits on a principle, (3) the atechnoi which the orator has merely to use,
not invent, and (4) the arts of style and delivery which are subordinate to an art of argument.
In addition to these four boundaries of rhetoric, there are four others that Aristotle might be expected
to use to delimit rhetoric, but which he does not. First, proofs and apparent proofs are equally within
the province of rhetoric. This lead, second, to the most surprising distinction Aristotle does not draw,
that between rhetoric and dialectic. They are distinct, but he doesn’t use their differences to delimit
rhetoric. Third, Aristotle has nothing to say about the relation that so engaged Plato between rhetoric
and phronêsis, practical wisdom. The sophists who claimed to teach virtue assimilated rhetorical
facility to practical wisdom, but Aristotle has no interest in engaging them on this point. And last, while
Book III makes comparisons between the style of oratory and that of tragedy, and contains cross-references to the Poetics, he never tries to find the nature of rhetoric through a comparison to poetics.
|
|---|