For all public speakers and leaders of the masses rhetoric stands out as perhaps the most important tool or rather asset as far as interaction with the masses is concerned. Rhetoric represents the capability and capacity of a public speaker to inform, motivate or even persuade a given audience in a given specific situation. Rhetoric refers to the practice of effective and accurate, to pin point proportions, writing and speaking. Rhetoric is in as few words as possible the art of persuasion, and a very delicate one at that. The onset of rhetoric ass a philosophical concept and a tangible social practice can be traced back to Aristotle. Aristotle went a step further to redefine or rather divide rhetoric into its three main pillars. These three main pillars of rhetoric are ethos, logs and last but certainly not least logos.
Metaphors are a very important tool as far as rhetoric is concerned. First it is very important to understand the meaning of a metaphor before delving into its contributions to the rhetoric. Metaphors are figures of speech that tends to describe a given subject by asserting that this particular subject is the mirror reflection of yet another subject that may appear to be completely unrelated and irrelevant to the issue on discussion. Metaphors use juxtaposition as an important tool of comparison. Metaphors therefore juxtapose two subjects and let the audience see or rather determine and judge for themselves just how similar these two subjects are to each other either in terms of traits or otherwise. Metaphors therefore achieve their goal in a very artistic way. This artistry is put on display when all the attributes of one subject are transferred to another subject who ay at first appear to be completely unrelated but through the metaphor the similarities between the two subjects slowly emerge and manifest themselves. A very good example of a metaphor that just so happens to be very effective is love is war. On the face value alone this is a completely absurd statement with absolutely no merit at all.
This is because love just so happens to be the mirror opposite of war. Love and war are two antagonist forces ad claiming that one is the other is tantamount to insanity and bankruptcy in terms of the mental faculties of the person making the statement. Deeper analysis of the statement however reveals an underlying truth. People in love more often than not engage in conflict and practices that are not friendly to say the least. As a result these actions merit a deeper investigation into the true meaning of love and the true content of love. As a result it is clearly emergent that love and war are nothing but different faces of the same coin. They are more similar than is visible on face observation value alone. This is a very good example of how metaphor is a tool of enforcing rhetoric. In order to convince the audience that love is not a complete joyride as many members of society might think the speaker might make the statement that live is war. With knowledge of exactly war entails this statement appeals to the emotions of the audiiennce.as a result the audience is able to examine love within the paradigms of art and as a result a clear picture of exactly what love is emerges and manifests itself. The use of metaphors as an element of rhetoric can be traced back too Plato who presented the difference of true and false rhetoric. Metaphors are part of true rhetoric because they bring out a given subject in its true nature as opposed to sugarcoating the subject.
Metaphors can further be understood in terms of rhetoric through the analysis of the brand of rhetoric that was presented and advocated by weaver. According to weaver the world through the naked eye seems peaceful and very calm. A close look at the word however reveals constant conflict. We have a world that seems peaceful but a closer analysis reveals a world full of constant collisions of atoms and energy forces constantly interacting with each other in ways that are very violent and disturbing. This aspect of the universe is however not visible at first sight. A closer look must be taken in order to get this picture of the world. This is very similar to the definition of love as presented by the metaphor that love is war. This is because on the surface love is beautiful and very calm. It is an aspect of life that appeals to every human being on earth and in deed an aspect that every human being aspires to embody and experience. Love is however nit just sunsets and roses as advertised. Love is by all means a warzone. Love is a realm of constant conflict where only the strong survive while the weak are relegated to the sideline and by all means left behind. Weaver thus enhances the explanation of rhetoric using the metaphor of the universe through the naked eye and a closer observation using enhanced means. His explanation is very important to the understanding of rhetoric because it provides a clear visual description of the rhetoric in question.
Burke expressed the need to use symbolism as a form of rhetoric in order to appeal better to the masses. This is very significant as far as rhetoric and metaphors are concerned. According to burke symbolism appeals better to the understanding of an individual thus making it very easy for rhetoric to be effective as far as the individual is concerned. Thus the metaphor art is beauty is very significant in this context. This is because the term art is a plain term and does not appeal to the emotions of people. Beauty on the other hand is very appealing as far as emotions are concerned. Beauty is therefore symbolic of art and vice versa. This statement enhances the understanding of rhetoric as far as appealing to the senses of the audience is concerned. This is because many people may not be able to relate to or identify with art. Many people however are fully capable of identifying with beauty.
The symbolism in this instance is therefore spotless as far as putting the message across is concerned. Symbolism in rhetoric can also be attributed to Longinus. Longinus introduced the concept of pigmies in a cage to illustrate the brutality of the Roman Empire and is very satirical of Rome. The symbol of pygmies in a cage is very significant as far as getting the message across is concerned.by reading the works of Longinus the reader gets a clear picture of just ho brutal the roman empire was. This is made possible by the symbolism that Longinus attaches to his work. This symbolism is very similar to the symbolism that occurs in metaphors and in rhetoric as a whole. Without symbolism the audience might fail to fully grasp exactly what it is that the author is speaking about. Faucalt is also a very important person as far as rhetoric is concerned. This is because he studies the human being in terms of knowledge and thus establishes the exact disposition of the human mind as far as truth is concerned and the likelihood of the human mind fully grasping and adopting this truth as in deed true. Faucault enhances the understanding of rhetoric through his disambiguation of the human mind in relation to truth and how it will be received.
Metaphors and rhetoric are very similar in that both are aimed at convincing thee audience of the true nature of a certain subject. Both metaphors and rhetoric are aimed at changing the point of view of the audience through the presentation of new information about the subject in question. There are also differences between metaphors and rhetoric. Metaphors rely on comparison for their success while rhetoric relies on strategy employed by the speaker in order to influence the audience in terms of opinion and point of view. Thus it is clear that rhetoric is a broader term in comparison to metaphors. Rhetoric embodies all the aspects of metaphors while metaphors only cover some aspects of rhetoric. This means that metaphors are therefore part of rhetoric.
