Introduction
Rhetoric in its wider sense, deals with persuasion and the various modes of persuasion which is kind of factual demonstration. Rhetoric is the identification of the means and ends of achieving effective persuasion, be it at now or in the future. Human condition makes its mind to perceive demonstrations as more convincing and persuasive. Therefore, speech helps with delivery of information by employing words, phrases and rhetoric questions.
The conceptual arguments used in speech, determine the general logical dialect in demonstration thereby helping to bring out persuasion. It is more important that any speaker should know that whether addressing one person or a whole room of audience, the audience will always remain his or her judge. Thus, the use of arguments to reflect persuasion should to some extent be laid effectively to overthrow the opposing arguments and take one proposition. Speech in can be of use in settling arguments and thus arriving at common ground.
Arguments exist between individuals because of the emotional experience rather than the mental experience which is aspired to be common amongst human entities, thus emotional differences are evidential links to problems thus the settling of arguments means resettlement of human problems. For one to take a stand he or she has to clearly use rhetoric the counterpart of dialect to discourse their statement and defend them, defend themselves and attach others. However, this should be coupled with inductive and deductive reasoning.
Rhetoric is useful because it is based on natural tendency rather than the mere concluded ideas and the failure of the speech to get the audience or judges well is attached to the speaker since rhetoric in argument is factual. In a speech speaker presentation is of more importance than just deliverance of information as some knowledge which can only be delivered through instructions can only and only be alternatively delivered through presentation argument and persuasion based on common knowledge notions.
Just as reasoning, persuasion requires that strict application being made. Strict persuasion needs to be employed so as to avoid making the judges to believe what is wrong as it is dangerous to mislead and it is better considering not applying persuasion to convince on ignorance.
Rhetoric is not exclusively bound on body, argument and emotional persuasion of the audience but is also as universal as its counterpart dialect that is it is not just fixed on the three areas but diverse. Rhetoric can be used to get means of nearly approaching the truth as the subject in question can allow for instance, Aristotle gives an example of medicine being not only raising the sick to healthy positions but also to get him far ahead on the road to achieving good health.
Application of reasonable persuasion techniques can be achieved if the speaker can employ care in the use of specific words phrases and sentences so that the audience perception should take the required direction and not any other unintended. Different contexts requires use of different words for instance, the elimination of various words in sentences renders the sentences meaningless.
However, Aristotle laid a general procedure of triggering the general effective public speaking. He considered the speaker first telling the audience what he or she wants to tell them, then proceeding to tell them what you intended and finally brief them what you have just told them.
The motion picture is an American based drama film of the year 1957. The movie is written and produced by Reginald Rose. The film is set up in a courtroom where there is a trial on a Spanish-American who is accused of murdering his father. The jury is a twelve man team in which the decision whether the young man is innocent or guilty solely lies on them. In the United States, a verdict on many criminal trials lies in a unanimous decision of the jury. However, in this case only one juror exempts himself from giving a guilty vote and reasons that there is too much at stake for him to give the vote that fast.
The above juror goes in line with the teachings of Aristotle, as he does not just agree with the motion and instead uses his power of reason in order to find the underlying cause of the case and give a conclusive decision. The juror persuades the other jurors to reason with him that the evidence presented is purely circumstantial and is not foolproof.
Other jurors portray their animalistic sides as they make verdicts of guilty. One juror says that he needs to catch the evening game that he has tickets. Another juror claims to make the verdict because he holds the perception that most people from the slum are prone to committing crime. The two jurors show how shallow their human thinking can get. Therefore, there is the need for a person like the juror with a not guilty verdict. After further reasoning and secret ballots, more and more not guilty votes continue to appear. The juror with the prejudices of slum people accuses a pointing finger on the juror who has a slum background.
Hannah Arendt is among the few largely celebrated political philosophers of the 21st century. In addition to her philosophical works, she is also a major contributor of the social and political theory of the famously recognized isocracy theory. Her sociological and philosophical studies on numerous historical perspectives are known to take unique approaches. In added to her high sense of Socratic perspective, she utilizes major instances of and political science in her extensive interpretation of numerous societal major events.
A critical examination into her numerous works reveals that it is difficult to directly pin point her position in the traditional political setup. It is easy to say that she is a great supporter of constitutionalism and she upholds the rule of the supreme law. Her deep and personal opinions reveal her high sense of disgrace for representative democracy. Instead, she always tirelessly supports and fosters for deliberative and participatory democracy and strives for the enhancement of a high sense of the revolutionary spirit in all aspects of the society.
Her critical nature reveals her deep compassion for anarchism and political pluralism. She also has a passion for the enhancement of direct democracy and political involvement. She also always emphasizes on the inevitable role of the federal governments of establishing lasting and working institutions that would uphold the constitution and the rule of law as the binding agreement of behavioral cords between the members of any rational society.
The human condition emphasizes on distinguishing three fundamental human aspects. These are working, labor and action. Her work on human conditions advances various concepts that disclose the mainly hidden power of action and speech. Arendt works on human condition highlights one of the fundamental functions of speech which greatly relates to the highly reputable Aristotle rhetoric’s and its counterpart dialects. She works the many human speech aspects which relates to speech leads to the disclosure of the hidden identity and inner nature of the speech agent, i.e. one who delivers the speech.
Arendt maintains that in speech and action, individual entities and personalities disclose themselves as unique individuals whom they actually are. Additionally, speech and action disclose and exposes their distinct personalities and capabilities to the entire world. The speech also plays a major role in distinguishing individuals according to the chapter on the human condition by Arendt. It distinguishes individuals on the basis of who they are and what they are. The latter refers to and discloses individuals’ talents, abilities in addition to shortcomings and deficiencies which are all traits that human beings share in common. Neither work nor labor enhances individuals to reveal their identities so as to reveal who they are as distinctive to what they are.
Labor submerges the individuality of a person as a result of being tied to a chain of inevitable natural necessities of life and the ending conflicts of natural survival. Labor enables all individuals to exhibit only sameness. This is derived from the fact that all humanity belongs to a common human species and must meet the needs of their lives. In labor, individuals behave to perform functions and fulfill roles since they are all subjected to the same imperatives. From the above illustrations from the chapter on the human condition by Hannah Arendt, it is evident that it is only in action and speech through which individuals reveal their inimitable identities and who they individually are. However, speech bears the highest affinity in the revelation of an individual’s true identity. In the absence of speech, actions lose its revelatory aspect as it could no longer be associated with its agent.
The first use of rhetoric, Aristotle dictates that the truth shall eventually come to be exposed. This meant to mean that lies would not last for long. They may seem to last for a while but they finally are will end sooner rather than later. In this case, Aristotle was quick to say that if the judges’ resolutions on the finality of issues are not as what should be there, the audiences should be able to speak up against it. They should not cower away. It is therefore necessary to use rhetoric as a means of making the truth prevail and what is right to stand. This should be used against citizens who complain oppression by their leaders yet they will the first to vote them back in. This is a sign of allowing the truth not to prevail.
The second use of rhetoric is to instruct audiences that seem nearly impossible to make it easy. There are some audiences that are set up “walls” in their minds that are hard to penetrate and even harder to make understand the words of the wise. In this context, one can use the example of racist individuals. These kinds of individuals believe that their race is superior to the other. Even with the explanation of different races and giving education that there is no difference other than the skin color, they seem not to understand. Aristotle argued that it is in such cases that the use of rhetoric is necessary to persuade them. It may also be used to pass a notion that is agreeable to many if not all.
Aristotle further states that the use of rhetoric should be at times when a little more persuasion is required. This is in order to give brief reasoning of our own perspective in which can be employed on a question at hand. We should not use this in making people believe what is not right rather on the contrary. The use of rhetoric is to act as a mind opener so that it can help in making one see the point more clearly. For those who try to argue unfairly, we may as well use rhetoric to deny their claims and lead them to the correct path. A case can be when one argues on the how abortion is in order. We can counter their argument by the use of rhetoric to persuade them into the right way of thinking.
Aristotle states finally that the use of rhetoric is in one’s own defense. He gives the explanation that it is not shameful to be unable to defend oneself by the use of one’s limbs. He confirms that it would be more shameful if a man would be unable to defend himself by the use of speech and reason as this is what defines a human being as a son logon icon. The only way one can differentiate a man from an animal is through his ability to reason and be able to defend oneself through speech and reason. Human beings are the only animals that have the power of reason, the rest just acts according to in born instincts. Therefore in the daily life of man one should have the ability use the power of speech as it has more strength than using physical strength.
Works Cited
Arendt, Hannah, and Margaret Canovan. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. Print.
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IND: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010. Print.
Powell, J G. F. Logos: Rational Argument in Classical Rhetoric. London: Institute of Classical Studies, 2007. Print.
Richards, Jennifer. Rhetoric. London: Routledge, 2008. Print.
