Nutshell Definition of Rhetoric

My definition of rhetoric is strongly influenced by readings in 542. Chuck really made us focus on trying to define rhetoric, even though we all agreed that our definitions would always be changing.

Personally my definition of rhetoric combines the theories of Isocrates, Plato and Aristotle. I like Isocrates' idea that good rhetoric is something that is natural, learned, and nurtured. In this sense, rhetoric seems more like a bear cub learning to hunt with its mother – born knowing it's need for food and specifically meat for survival, taught how to watch the river for oncoming fish, and over time through repetition, the hunt is perfected to a point of sustainability for the bear. This process is both passive and active, requiring flexibility and dedication. Isocrates' organic interpretation of rhetoric and the relativist values that encompass it, seem more practical and forgiving than Plato's “absolute truth.” I also like that Isocrates advocates for the use of written rhetoric for education. As an aspiring editor and writer who understands that without written text I would never get a job, I feel that while oral rhetoric is more important for immediate interaction, written rhetoric is necessary in order for us to interact with our past.

In a nutshell, for me, rhetoric is not simply “a circumscribed set of skills,” a form of persuasion, dialectic, a speech, “a phantom part of politics,”or based on strictly epistmeme (Plato, Gorgias, 463d). I would define rhetoric as an adapted form of dialectic that derives from the Aristotelian Canons but differs primarily in domain, applicability, and continuity. Ultimately rhetoric is an artistic, adaptable, public, and organic mode of swaying the soul towards the rhetorician's perceived truth via both oral and written forms.