Sample Essay Paper on Rhetoric Analysis

Rhetoric Analysis


Briefly explain this characterization of rhetoric. Then, discuss what professional writers gain from an art of rhetoric, as well as the limitations such an art poses for professional writers.

I agree with the response in this context that supports Aristotle’s generalization of rhetoric as an art that helps in speaking and writing. It is true that human beings are social people by nature and must at one point or the other speak or write. While others may have been born as gifted speakers and writers, the observation and practicing cultures are essential to facilitate the learning and mastery process of rhetoric hence qualifying rhetoric as an art. Professional writers gain much from sharing their ideas in a clear and flawless manner. This means that with the skill of excellent rhetoric, a professional writer can use the little information that is available to persuade an audience or readers. The danger is that at times professional writers may be tempted to use rhetoric in exaggeration hence end up distorting the facts.

The different ways rhetoric, philosophy, politics, and ethics have been related (or separated) in definitions of rhetoric

I agree with the response on how all these aspects are related. Aristotle established that human beings have opinions in politics thus making them political beings. Politics are guided by certain philosophies depending on the context. Human beings then use rhetoric to express these philosophies and eventually evaluate whether they are ethical or not.

The distinctions between rhetoric/writing as a productive vs. a practical art

I disagree with this response. It does not mean that every other time something is said to be practical qualifies it to be efficient and effective. Again at times, being practical also involves the consideration of aesthetics.

In my view, not only is practical rhetoric concerned with the action that is involved with writing but also with the speaking. This is because a well written speech can be poorly delivered hence making it look impractical. I also disagree with the opinion that writing which is productive is more involving than that, which is practical. A scientist may give productive writing based on research findings, statistics and data collected. It requires more involvement to break this information into a language that an ordinary audience will need to understand.

What rhetoric would be if it were categorized as a science, an art, and a practice/action

I agree with the responses given. Rhetoric would be scientific knowledge because scientists would easily be taught on how to draw various conclusions on particular issues and on making new discoveries. These would easily be learned. This is because for scientific knowledge, there is no need for a God-given talent or ability needed to persuade people as is usually in politics and poetry. I also agree that rhetoric is an art because it takes specialized experts to stand out from everyone else. For one to be considered an orator, they need to be able to discern how to use language on others both when writing and when speaking. This means they have to know the distinction between the content of the language and the form. They must sharpen their skills of persuasion using ethos, logos and pathos to inspire the people. Everyone can speak but not all people inspire others whenever they speak. I also agree that rhetoric is a practice that involves taking action. It calls for the intentional use of language to accomplish particular tasks as desired. This means it can be used either ethically or unethically depending on how it is applied practically.