Kenneth Burke Persuasion

Aristotle and Burke's theories both accomplish the ultimate goal of finding the meaning behind rhetoric, but Burke's theory delves deeper into the meaning of the rhetoric. When applying Mary Fisher's speech to each of these theories, and looking mainly at this larger difference, it is clear that the true motive of the speech is better developed by Burke's theory than Aristotle's. The main difference between Aristotle and Burke is that Aristotle views persuasion as an argument that can be divided up into the clearly defined categories of ethos, pathos, and logos, while Burke views persuasion as the relationship between speaker and audience, which is largely interpretive. Burke's extremely interpretative theory allows one to capture and analyze

Rhetoric is an act of persuasion. Aristotle believes that the most persuasive technique is the truth. He taught others that rhetoric is to be used for persuasion and not manipulation and that it is to be done ethically. When using rhetoric for persuasion, it is important to recognize the rhetorical triangle. The rhetorical triangle includes the speaker, the subject, and the person being addressed. This triangle also demonstrates the three modes of persuasion, logos, ethos, and pathos. The author must embody all parts of the triangle. The speaker must exhibit ethos through their credibility. The subject must encompass logos by making logical sense. The appeal to the audience must use pathos to be persuasive. When these three parts come together, a persuasive speech can be delivered. Of the three sections of the rhetorical triangle, the audience is the most important. I will demonstrate my argument of the role of audience in the rhetorical triangle throughout the essay.

Rhetoric is a way for one to learn how to communicate to an exact audience and reason. In this journal, I will

The first chapter introduced the reader to the art of rhetoric. He describes how rhetoric works through real life examples. He demonstrates ways that rhetoric persuades us like, argument from strength, and seduction. He tells the reader that the sole purpose of arguing is to persuade the audience. He showed that the chief purpose of arguing is to also achieve consensus, a shared faith in a choice.

Rhetoric is a persuasive tool, consisting of logos which is logic and reasoning, pathos which is emotional language and ethos which is character and fundamental values. Rhetoric is a fundamental thing used by pigs and importantly Squealer, whom persuade other animals to follow the pig’s decisions and needs.

Rhetoric seems like a big word but the meaning is simple- persuasion. In the book Julius Caesar, Antony and Brutus, two major characters, are fantastic at persuading the Roman citizens. When one is reading the story, they might think that both have equal amounts but when you look closer, Antony has the better rhetoric strategies. In just a few short sentences, Antony convinced the people to believe that Caesar needed revenge even though he never came out and told them that. Just a couple of minutes ago, the citizens were on Brutus’s side and thought that Caesar needed to go.

Often times in daily life, a person will use rhetoric. Whether it’s arguing with a sibling or the sound of an alarm, rhetoric is in use. Rhetoric is effective persuasion and persuasion is swaying someone to do or believe in something. The reason rhetoric is important to be taught in school is because not only does it often show up in daily life but it can show up in the media as well.

Rhetoric’s are used in every occurence of our lives whether we are aware of them or not. From the way we greet new ideas and thoughts, to the way we function with already existing notions, regardless, rhetorics have incorporated into our daily life from the first few months of our lives. The dictionary recognizes rhetorical to mean ‘the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.’ What’s the main concept to explore of rhetorics, are the main uses and techniques that are commonly used.

Gerard A. Hauser covers a plethora of details on how to create a well-made persuasive argument in his book, an Introduction to Rhetorical Theory; however, he covered three specific essentials that are necessary for persuasion: the components logos, pathos and ethos; purposive discourse and rhetorical competence; identification. I will argue for each constituent, respectively, to prove that persuasion cannot thrive without the aforementioned essentials.

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.

While Bitzer’s insights into how one may think about the way in which rhetorical discourse acts upon and therefore alters the reality of a situation, it is difficult to see his point in stating that the “mere craft of persuasion” lacks philosophical warrant as a practical discipline. The clearest reason it seems, is implied from the examples that Bitzer uses, none of which are theological or religious in nature, but rather the examples he provides are usually political. Although one is left to speculate as to what categories Bitzer would include in sophistical rhetoric (other than a play or novel), might theological and religious discourse be subsumed under

According to the original definition we read in class rhetoric can be any sense of communication or influence as well as persuading effectively. In that sense, most of the definitions in the book is very similar and touch base of the modern day definition of rhetoric. In addition to this, most if not all the definitions I have read have one thing in common; persuading audiences effectively in the act of speaking while anticipating to open there minds up. However, throughout history the definition of rhetoric has been always mentioned as persuading audiences. Because of that most students believe that rhetoric is nothing more than effectively persuading. But after seeing the definitions in the book I have also been enlighten. In spite of that,

For Burke, rhetoric can be about persuasion, but is more than mere persuasion and is more than simply convincing you that an action is right. Rhetoric on a more fundamental level is a way of connecting your intrinsic ideas to a shared extrinsic idea. The process of identification is always about making that connection from the intrinsic to the extensive which Burke says can be done in three ways. The first can be seen by describing or identifying two extrinsic ideas together, which can be seen in the NFL protests by connecting the US flag to patriotism. Secondly, identifying both the speaker and audience, or looking for the intrinsic motivation shared between the speaker and the audience is another way the process of identification works. Identification is also about transcendence, as Burke identifies us with ideals or things larger than ourselves as a way of moving beyond who we are.

In definition rhetorical theory is a theory where the speaker is giving a persuasion to the audience in the form of logical, emotional, and ethical aspect. Greek philosopher Aristotle is the first person that came to up the idea of the art of persuasion, an art that is use for public speaking, where he explains that there are three types of persuasion such as, deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. Aristotle also includes that the important element of public speaking or persuasive communication is the audience. Audience is the most important aspect of persuasion, considering if there is no audience, then there is no act of persuasion.

Plato's morality approach and Aristotle's systematic pragmatic approach to Rhetoric have long since been discussed and debated in the disciplines of English and Philosophy alike. They address the true nature of rhetoric, whether or not one can consider Rhetoric an art form, and also the misuse of the persuasive nature of Rhetoric. Their contrasting views come together on some ideas about rhetoric and once can almost reach to say they compliment each other while simultaneously contradicting. However both Plato and Aristotle's representations of Rhetoric are both still very much relevant to the understanding of rhetoric today.