Custom essays on Neo-Aristotelian criticism

It is possible to say that Aristotle has created the foundation of rhetorical system, known as classical, and which for over two and a half millennia was taken as a model for learning the art of public speaking. Moreover, Aristotle’s ideas formed the basis for the appearance of one of modern views in the theory of argumentation, which Belgian philosopher J. Perelman called the “new rhetoric”. This explains that Aristotle’s rhetoric was focused primarily on the logical principles of persuasion, which gave it a solid, reliable foundation; ensure harmony and consistency in the process of argumentation (Eshbaugh-Soha, 2006).
Aristotle thoroughly studied the problem of rhetoric from a logical point of view. He devoted it a number of works, among which his famous “Rhetoric.” In that work, the rhetoric is defined as teaching, encouraging finding possible ways of beliefs about any given subject. This, according to Aristotle, does not touch a problem of any other art, because every other science can teach and persuade only about what belongs to its field. The universal character of rhetoric as the art of persuasion, by its nature is similar to the dialectic.
With regard to the process of persuasion, the author of “Rhetoric” distinguishes on the one hand, the methods or techniques of persuasion, which are not invented by us, and calls them non-technical, and other techniques that can be created by us using the method and our own funds.
The first kind consists of all kinds of facts, evidence, etc. parcels, which are based in evidence and plausible reasoning. Aristotle himself adds to this list the eyewitness evidences, written contracts, oaths, and even the testimony given under torture. Aristotle refers to the technical means of persuasion, the techniques for rendering, by which the arguments are associated with printing of these conclusions. The most common forms of logical inference are deductive reasoning, in which conclusions with a logical necessity follows from the premises as arguments (Sachs, 2008).
Thus, the credibility of any speeches, position in the dispute, the public statement is based, according to Aristotle, firstly, on the truth or at least plausibility cited arguments, premises, which he calls non-technical and the means of persuasion that were created not by us. Secondly, it also depends on the methods or logic rules with the help of which the conclusions are made out of the arguments.
The persuasiveness of speech depends on the emotional nature of people or, as Aristotle says, on their passions. Under the influence of passion the trust appears or disappears. The passion influences changes of the decisions on various issues, a sense of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, expressed in anger, compassion, fear, etc.
Thus, by means of disclosure topics Aristotle relates, in particular, whether the issue be submitted to the troubled form or descriptively, as a dispassionate logical reasoning, or emotional. These different ways of constructing the rhetoric understands as the sources or modes of conviction. There are three modes: logos, ethos and pathos.
Logos is the belief by appeal to reason, the sequence of arguments constructed by the laws of logic (Podell, 2001).
Ethos is the belief by appeal to the audience recognized moral principles. Since the general moral principles and values are known (fairness, honesty, respect for sacred places, loyalty to country, etc.), the author, who wishes to build a belief in the ethos just needs to find suitable to the occasion and the audience principles.
Pathos means the excitation of emotion or passion, on the basis of which the conviction occurs. The study about the excited passions has been developed already in the old rhetoric. The emotions, the success of which meant the initiation and success in persuading have been described: joy, anger, hope, fear, sadness, enthusiasm, courage, pride, etc.
Aristotle recommends choosing the right material, in order to activate all three moods of credibility. The text should have a logical sequence of reasoning; arguments must be based on moral principles and appeal to the emotions of the audience. At the same time, the modes of persuasion should be brought into harmony with each other and with the topic. Excited emotions must reflect the theme. Abrupt changes from rational beliefs to emotional speech are not allowed, the smooth transition is needed.
We have already said that the rules written down by Aristotle are still valid. Let us look at a few speeches of American presidents and see how they are used.
In June 1987 the U.S. President Ronald Wilson Reagan attended a summit of leaders of European countries on economic issues. Before returning to the U.S., he made a visit to West Berlin to take part in the celebrations of the 750 anniversary of the city foundation. On the 12th of June Reagan gave a speech at the Brandenburg Gate (the author of the speech text was a presidential speechwriter P. Robinson) (Liebovich, 2001).
After reviewing the draft speech, the State Department and Defense Department recommended that Reagan not to pronounce it, or at least change the text; they found the language of speech to be too harsh, and the content too provocative. Even a few minutes before the speech presidential tried to convince him not to give that speech. According to their memoirs, Reagan said with a chuckle: “The guys from the State Department will kill me, but it should be done.” After the November 1989, the Berlin Wall fall; it was dividing not only Berlin, but the whole Europe for over 28 years. The speech of the U.S. President was regarded as one of the important reasons for the decision of the Soviet leadership to urge the head of the GDR E. Honecker to demolish the wall. As this speck is very long and we have no opportunity to give the full text, here is just a short retelling of the Reagan’s speech.
“Chancellor Kohl, Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen!
Twenty-four years ago, the president John Kennedy visited Berlin and spoke to the people of this city and to the whole world in the building of the municipality. Since then, two more of our presidents visited Berlin one by one. And today it is my second time when I come to your city. We, the American presidents arrive in Berlin because it is our duty to speak here about the freedom. But I must confess that we are called here, by a sense of history, your courage and determination.
Our today’s meeting is being broadcasted all over Western Europe and North America. I am aware that it is watched and heard in the East also. I address my words to those who listen to us in Eastern Europe: although I can not be with you, I address my words to you, the same as to those who stand in front of me.
Behind me there is a wall that surrounds a free-sector of the city, part of a vast system of barriers separating the entire European continent. But there are nonetheless armed guards and checkpoints – the barriers to free travel; the same tool of subordination of ordinary men and women to the will of the totalitarian state. Standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate, every man feels himself a German, separated from his countrymen.
The president Weizsacker said: “The Deutsch question remains open as long as the Brandenburg Gates are closed”. Today I say: “Until the gates are closed, not only the German’s question is opened, but the question of freedom of all mankind”. But I came here not to grieve, because I see a ray of hope in Berlin, and the beam of triumph in the shadow of this wall.
In the springtime of 1945 people of Berlin emerged from their bomb shelters and found the ruin. The people of the United States offered a helping hand from million of miles away.
In West Germany and here in Berlin, there was an economic miracle. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty; that just the same as when the truth can flourish only when the journalist is given a freedom of expression, the prosperity can come only when the farmer and businessman, are given the economic freedom. The Germanic leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, cut taxes. Only from 1950 to 1960 the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled.
In 1950, Khrushchev promised: “We will bury you.” But today on the West we see the free world, that has reached such a level of prosperity and wealth, which has no precedent in the human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining state of health, poverty, even in the most important, lack of food. Even today, the Soviet Union still can not feed its people. As a result, after these four decades the world has made an important and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatred between nations by mutual respect and peace. Liberty won.
And now the Soviets themselves probably come with certain limitations to understanding the importance of freedom. We hear a lot of words from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness.
The General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek for peace, if you want prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek for liberalization, come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that has infected the continent, and I promise you that my country will try to help in removing this burden.
There is only one country in Europe and those whom it controls refuse to join a community of freedom. However, in this age of rapid economic growth, information and innovation to the Soviet Union faces a choice, the profound changes should happen, or it will lag forever.
Today, therefore, the time of hope came. We in the West are ready to cooperate with the East in order to promote true openness, to destroy the barriers that divide people, to create a safer, freer world. And of course, there is no better place to start way than Berlin, where the East and the West.
Looking out from the window of the Reichstag, I noticed the words crudely painted on the wall, perhaps by some young Berliner: “This wall will fall. Faith becomes a reality.” Yes, this wall will fall across the Europe. It won’t resist the faith. The wall can not withstand freedom.
Thank you and God bless you.” (Friedenberg, 1993).

This speech reflects all the rules, which were set out by Aristotle.
Even in this small passage of Reagan’s speech is easy to see the logo. These are all logical inferences, accurate data that are accessed by the president. A vivid example is the phrase “Only from 1950 to 1960 the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled”. Using the dates and economic indicators, he thereby causes the audience to make sure that the path they are taking is correct, and is the only possible. In his speech, Reagan also quoted the Chancellor of Germany, which underlines the attention and understanding between countries. Also, the President cited the example of the Soviet Union, contrasting it to Germany. In terms of logo, it makes the Germans not only to continue moving in the right direction, but also to understand that there is no other way. This technique is also useful from an emotional point of view.
In general, an example of the Soviet Union and its depressing situation is useful in terms of all three methods of persuasion. Reagan emphasizes the audience’s attention on the fact that the values which are preached by the Soviet government are wrong and thus opposite to them (the value of the Germans) are correct. Knowing the main values of Germans, such as freedom, justice and economic prosperity, the president talks about them (Waldman, 2003).
Reagan, of course, makes the emotional impact on listeners, the pathos. First, in his speech, he repeatedly uses the sentences in the German language, which shows his respect, attention and understanding of the Germans. With the same purpose, he says that while being there, he feels himself a German. Returning to the example of the Soviet Union, it is easy to guess that in the postwar period there was not much sympathy between nations and people. And according to the principle “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” turns out that he is a friend of the Germans and the fact that he talks in the right way. He demonstrates his enthusiasm by offering a helping hand and paying attention to the fact that America has helped and continues to do so. Also pay attention to the fact that the most part of the speech consists of short, clear sentences that lead to better understanding and greater emotional coloring. The whole speech is full of hope and it pushes to action. In my opinion, this speech is an excellent example of how to write political speeches, using all three of Aristotle’s method of impact on the listener.
There is one more interesting speech that I want to pay attention to, the speech of another U.S. president, George W. Bush. This speech was given soon after the events of September 11 and was dedicated to the war with terrorism. Referring to members of the National Endowment for Democracy, he stressed the need to achieve victory in this difficult struggle.
At the beginning, the President said that on Sept. 11, 2001 was a turning point in the U.S. history, started the global war with terrorism. He noted that the war against this evil, the actions of which were noticed in Madrid and Casablanca, Jakarta, Istanbul, London and Beslan, in Netanya and the Sharm el-Sheikh, as well as in Iraq, will not be easy, but in this war the United States should achieve the complete victory. “Our goal is to destroy terrorists and their associates in their own lair, and therefore we will defeat this enemy in Iraq” – said Bush.
The president noted that terrorists armed with the ideology of Islamic radicalism, use Islam for their own purposes, but their activity has nothing to do with Islamic religion. He called them the enemies of Islam, whose aim is the destruction of innocent people to stop the advance of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
Since that time, the President Bush’s rating has dropped rapidly, because many Americans did not support his policies in Iraq, believing that the U.S. military presence in that country contributed to increased violence. Responding to this criticism, Bush said: “Some observers are pessimistic about what we should do in Iraq. I do not agree with this approach. After every new explosion, and the funeral of every child, it becomes increasingly evident that the Islamic extremists are not the resistance fighters, but the assassins waging war against the Iraq people.” (Micciche, 2003).
President Bush emphasized that Iraq has become a front line in the struggle against the terrorism. He called the terrorists “the cowardly murderers of innocent people, trying to continue the oppression of nations and intimidate the whole world.” The use of an epithet is a clear emotional effect and the demonstration of the point of view; that is pathos.
The President said that the terrorists have increased activity in the territory of Iraq to prevent the democratic process in this country and force the Americans withdraw from Iraq, repeating the sad precedent for withdrawing U.S. troops from Beirut in 1983 and Mogadishu in 1993. Bush recalled that this led to very undesirable consequences for America, and stressed that now the withdrawal of U.S. forces would be even harder, not only for the U.S., but for the whole world, as terrorists seek to dominate the entire planet. That is why, according to the president, if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, there will be a terror in that country, which will entail a danger to all humanity. Saying this, the president stressed that there is no other way, because examples from history show the correctness of modern politics and lead the audience to the conclusion that the war should be continued.
Bush said that war with the ideology of Islamic radicalism is not possible without the participation of Islamic clerics, many of which have already condemned the actions of terrorists. He described some successes in Iraq, in particular in the political process and training of the Iraqi security forces. Thus, he tried to protect himself from anger and misunderstanding of the rest of the Islamic world (Schlesinger, 2004).
Bush also mentioned that the concrete progress in the fight against terrorism, in particular the prevention of at least ten attacks of Al-Qaeda, including three on the territory of the U.S., and that the Americans’ actions thwarted five attempted terrorist infiltrations into the United States. Using the facts is necessary while using the logo.
As we see in both of the above speeches, all three methods of persuasion described by Aristotle are used. This proves the relevance of his work, and the right way of composition of American presidents’ speeches.
References

Eshbaugh-Soha M. (2006). The President’s Speeches: Beyond “Going Public”. p. 18.
Friedenberg R.V. (1993). Rhetorical Studies of National Political Debates: 1960-1992, Second Edition (Praeger Series in Political Communication). pp. 65-74.
Lammers W., Genovese M.(2000). The Presidency and Domestic Policy: Comparing Leadership Styles, FDR to Clinton. pp. 54-57.
Liebovich L. (2001). The Press and the Modern Presidency: Myths and Mindsets from Kennedy to Election 2000, Revised Second Edition. pp. 47-48.
Micciche L.R., Jacobs D. (2003). A Way to Move: Rhetorics of Emotion and Composition Studies. pp. 110-112.
Podell J., Anzovin S. (2001). Speeches of the American Presidents (Specialized Dictionaries). pp. 23-25.
Sachs J. (2008). Plato’s Gorgias & Aristotle’s Rhetoric. p. 34.
Schlesinger A.M. (2004). The Imperial Presidency. p. 58.
Waldman M., Stephanopoulos G. (2003). My Fellow Americans: The Most Important Speeches of America’s Presidents, from George Washington to George W. Bush.