| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "PHILOSOPHICAL RHETORIC WRONG": |
|
|
The Philosophical Rhetoric of Right and Wrong, 2008.
An analysis of cultural bias versus objectivity for journalism within the modern media according to Aristotle and Plato.
2,742 words (approx. 11.0 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to bring forth the views of Aristotle and Plato to analyze the current issues of bias and objectivity that exist within the cultural construct of journalism and the modern media. By evaluating the issues of rhetoric as put forth by Plato and Aristotle, the paper shows how one can realize the often-tainted perspective for truth within the institutional nationalism and capitalism of modern media corporations.
From the Paper
"The philosophy of Plato is far more abstract than that of Aristotle, since it focuses more on the forms of higher understanding and the greater good. The term rhetoric was often not a complimentary word for Plato, as he often saw language and knowledge being used on a relativistic basis for the well being of those that sought to profit from non-virtuous political or social means. Often the lack of uniformity in defining what is the "greater good" in society is difficult, since the intellectual virtue discussed by Aristotle can often provide an abstract and often unrealistic set of ethical guidelines. "
| |
|
Philosophical Skepticism and Rhetoric in Sophism, 2005.
A discussion of skepticism, rhetoric and sophism and examples of who they are used in writing.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 2 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper defines three words: skepticism, rhetoric, and sophism. It then combines these words into an essay. A sophist questions knowledge, but he or she is different than a skeptic. Another philosophical term is rhetoric. Rhetoric is used to persuade people to someone's philosophical view on a topic. Sophists used rhetoric in explaining their skepticism about life and different topics. "
From the Paper
"Philosophical Skepticism and Rhetoric in Sophism Imagine believing that nothing exists and if something does exist, a person cannot know for sure, and if they cannot know for sure then they cannot teach it to others (Philosophy of the Sophists). People who thought this way were called Sophists. Another important philosophical term is skepticism. "Philosophical skepticism is a critical attitude which systematically questions the notion that absolute knowledge and certainty are possible" (Carroll). Another philosophical term is rhetoric, which means rhetoric. Rhetoric is used to persuade people to someone's philosophical view on a topic. Sophists used rhetoric in explaining their skepticism about life and different topics. Sophists wanted to know how a person can know something and whether what they learn can actually be truth. "The Sophists centered their efforts on the problem of knowledge as well as on the problem of morality and justice" (Classic Philosophers)."
| |
|
Philosophical Dialectic vs. Sophistic Rhetoric, 2002.
Analysis of Plato's "Gorgias," specifically dealing with the importance of philosophical dialectic in the Socratic method, as well as Socrates' criticism of sophistic rhetoric.
1,705 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 2 sources, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is an in depth examination of Plato's "Gorgias". It focuses on the importance, for Plato, of demonstrating that philosophy, not rhetoric, is the basis of the good life and of human happiness. The author explores both political and personal, and philosophical implications. Among some other topics touched upon are Plato's definition of the good, his understanding of the soul, and his basic political philosophy.
From the Paper
"Rhetoric, the art that Gorgias claims to possess, is in every way opposed to wisdom and the good. Plato emphasizes this point from the very beginning of the dialogue. Socrates' lateness to Gorgias' declamation is a deliberate tactic. Whereas Gorgias' speech is meant to be a performance, Socrates is interested in a discussion. Philosophical conversation is concerned with dialectical definitions and essences, while rhetoric is concerned with mere appearances. Socrates compares the distinction to the difference between the way a chef prepares food, purely to impress the diners, to the way a nutritionist does, scientifically and using reason."
| |
|
Aristotle on "Rhetoric", 2006.
An review of Aristotle's theory of rhetoric as found in his work entitled, "Rhetoric".
3,130 words (approx. 12.5 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Aristotle's theory on rhetoric. The paper discusses Aristotle's philosophy as found in his work "Rhetoric" and defines what he means by the term rhetoric. The paper also shows how Aristotle's work is closely based on the Greek philosopher, Pericles' work "Funeral Oration." The paper then goes on to discusses the philosophies on rhetoric of Plato and Isocrates.
From the Paper
"What does it mean to be human? By comparison through contrast to non-humans, humans are "decision-making creatures capable of overruling [their] own instincts." It naturally follows that those tools which enable humans to exhibit these unique characteristics are the most essential to human existence and evolution. For thousands of years, Rhetoric has proved to be this ubiquitous tool. Rhetoric is a device by which humans can explore and explain the otherwise unexplainable, persuade others of the subsequently derived probabilities, and fulfill these tasks all the while integrating emotion and psychology into the process. No other art, science, or communicative tool can match the intellectual potential inherent in rhetoric. Aristotle's work Rhetoric, titled after the exclusive nature of its content, explicates the enigmatic definition of rhetoric in the first book of the three-part series, and suggests ways to employ rhetoric for any conceivable end in the second and third parts. In his opening chapter, Aristotle defines rhetoric as the ability to "see the persuasive and the apparently persuasive" in any case. Proceeding from this definition, Aristotle explains the means of persuasion, the importance of projected character in persuasion, and the importance of understanding and incorporating the desired end in any case involving persuasion. While the Greek philosopher, Pericles, lived nearly a century before Aristotle published Rhetoric, one the elder's works, "Funeral Oration" functions almost flawlessly as a model for Aristotle's theory of rhetoric. Aristotle's emphasis on pathos and ethos as highly useful means of persuasion as well as his prescription for effective epideictic rhetoric seem to be written following the precise form of "Funeral Oration." Whether one influenced another is irrelevant; the greater significance lies in the irrefutable, tremendous impact each work imparted on the future of rhetoric."
| |
|
Aristotle and Plato on Rhetoric, 2005.
A comparison between Plato and Aristotle's views on rhetoric.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 4 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at two of the classical experts on rhetoric, two philosophers, two ancient thinkers from Greece - Plato and Aristotle - who while they were close had differing opinions and beliefs regarding this art and way of thinking and arguing. The following essay looks at Plato's Gorgias and Phaedrus in order to study just what this man's thoughts on rhetoric were. Then the focus shifts to Aristotle, whose Rhetoric and Poetics will reveal this philosopher's wisdom on the subject.
From the Paper
"Aristotle and Plato on Rhetoric "Rhetoric" is a term thrown around too often today, with the user most likely having no clue of its meaning or rich background. From "rhetorical" questions to claims of politicians merely using "rhetoric," too many times the term and overall idea is exercised without a complete understanding of exactly what "rhetoric" is."
| |
|
The Rhetoric of Machiavelli and Shakespeare, 2005.
This paper compares the use and abuse of rhetoric by two Renaissance geniuses: Machiavelli in "The Prince" and Shakespeare in "Julius Caesar".
4,845 words (approx. 19.4 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 123.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the primary use of rhetoric is to convince the reader to take the author's side of an opinion; but sometimes the author, as in Machiavelli's "The Prince", has hidden his opinion so deeply in the rhetoric that it is misunderstood. The author points out that Shakespeare used rhetoric in his plays, especially in his political tragedies, to demonstrate how easily men and women were corruptible by power. The paper relates that in "Julius Caesar" Cassius was totally corrupted by his quest for power and brought down ignominiously in battle; however, Brutus, whose flaw was poor judgment and needed to be "one of the gang", was permitted to honorably commit suicide rather than be tried and executed. Many long textual examples.
Table of Contents
Uses and Abuses of Rhetoric
Rhetoric in "Julius Caesar"
Machiavelli's "The Prince"
Rhetoric Unveiled
From the Paper
"If Johnny Cochrane were playing to both the jury and the country in this use of a crude rhetorical device, certainly a playwright like Shakespeare would be playing to both royalty and the average playgoer when he wrote "Julius Caesar". Advertisement was limited to a few playbills posted on walls and what the town crier could yell to the generally illiterate common rabble. In looking at any of Shakespeare's plays as Renaissance commercial theatrical adventures, memorable lines would have been good selling points for the literate as was word of mouth of the great fight and death scenes to the common man. Even today our far more sophisticated tastes run from high action adventure to the deeply philosophical in our entertainment."
| |
|
Burke's Contributions to Rhetoric, 2001.
This paper discusses Kenneth Burke's contributions to rhetoric and its importance as a communicative tool.
2,890 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 7 sources, $ 85.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the history of rhetoric and it's significance in early Greek and Roman civilizations that coincided with creation of democracy and the importance of public speech. It then shows Kenneth Burke's contribution to the new rhetoric as an argumentative weapon and his influence on the post-modern deconstructionism.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Section One: The Preceding Conversation
3. Section Two: Contribution to the Conversation
4. Section Three: Effect on the Conversation
5. Conclusion
From the paper:
"The word "rhetoric" has an old fashioned air about it. It calls up images of schoolrooms with children in ruffled collars and Latin grammars and not a laptop in sight for several centuries. But rhetoric is as alive as is language itself, and this paper examines the importance of rhetorical studies in helping each of us to become the best writers and speakers - the best communicators - that we can be. A historical study of changes models and standards in rhetoric can also provide us not only with a sense of how linguistic and especially English style has changed over the years as well as illuminating how our conception of language and its structure and function have changed as well. This paper engages in such an examination by focusing on the work of Kenneth Burke. We begin with a brief overview of the life of this man whose rhetorical work we will then examine."
| |
|
Classical and Modern Rhetoric, 2007.
This paper assesses the components and evolution of the rhetoric argument.
2,260 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 69.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper defines the concept of rhetoric as a strategy through which exploration of concepts can be achieved. The paper explores classic and modern rhetoric in order to achieve an understanding of rhetoric and its purpose. The paper outlines the transformations in the perception and use of rhetoric and shows how this tool of communication now helps to expand thought instead of being used specifically to convince others.
Outline:
Introduction
Classic Rhetoric
The Emergence of Modern Rhetoric
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The emergence of rhetoric within ancient Greece came to pass after the popularization of sophist inquiry. Sophism as a debate tool enabled the speaker to argue any given point regardless of its factual accuracy, a process that empowered those engaged in the dialogue to explore all possible tangents leading from a core concept. Yet while sophism was powerful as a means of expanding the limits of thought, it was not appropriate as a means of identifying core truths within a debate. Following the works of Plato in which truth and internal integrity were championed as fundamentals of existence, sophism was not a sustainable concept."
| |
|
Rhetoric and the Baroque Opera, 2004.
Examines the breakdown of rhetoric, how it tied into opera, and examines the rhetorical principles in Purcell's "Dido and Aeneas".
2,080 words (approx. 8.3 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper begins by first examining what rhetoric is and each of its parts, including ethos, pathos, and logos. From here, the paper examines how rhetoric was applied first in Renaissance vocal music and then developed into the Baroque opera. The paper concludes by looking at common rhetorical figures in music and examines the use of rhetoric in "Dido's Lament" from Henry Purcell's opera "Dido and Aeneas".
From the Paper
"During this start of Baroque music, Caccini talks about new forms of expression. He says that ornamentations of notes only be used where they would help to heighten the verbal expression. What was new here was that the text, which was often a dialog, was set for only one voice part with the rhythms and melodies of natural speech being followed precisely-the only important thing to this new style was to express the text of the piece of music as clearly as one can and with the greatest expression. The music was essentially a backdrop on which the words were set. All of the previous inventions related to polyphony were thrown out. This new style contained almost no word repetition, unlike the madrigal or the motet, since, when in an actual conversation with someone, you would not repeat yourself unless the other party has missed something you said or you are adding extra emphasis to a word or sentence. This new style was called monody."
| |
|
Rhetoric and Aristotle, 2006.
An analysis of Aristotle's ideas about rhetoric, how it functions and its role in today's society.
1,300 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes Aristotle's ideas about rhetoric. It contrasts Aristotle's perspectives to other theorists and then compares the role of rhetoric and oratory in ancient times to today. Finally, the paper explores the usefulness of rhetoric in our lives today.
Outline
Aristotle's Rhetoric and Other Interpretations
Functions of Rhetoric and Oratory Then and Now
The Usefulness of Rhetoric in Our Roles in Life
From the Paper
"Rhetoric as defined by Aristotle and others holding fast to his rules is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice or from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art."
| |
|
Aristotle's "Rhetoric", 1991.
This paper discusses Aristotle's "Rhetoric", considered to be the definitive work on rhetoric: Divided into three books: l) the speaker, 2) the audience, & 3) the speech itself.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 5 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Aristotle's "Rhetoric" is considered the definitive work on the topic of rhetoric. Rhetoric may be defined as the effective use of either oral or written language. Aristotle specifically felt that rhetoric involves "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion". Aristotle considered rhetoric to be unique among the arts in that it does not "instruct or persuade about its own particular subject-matter". Rather, rhetoric seeks to "direct and organize thought concerning any subject-matter". Aristotle's Rhetoric is divided into three books which correspond roughly to the three basic divisions found in classical speech. Thus, Book I is concerned with the speaker; Book II is concerned with the audience; and Book III is concerned with the speech itself.
Aristotle was not the first philosopher to write on the ... "
| |
|
Rhetoric in the Nicomachean Ethics, 2005.
A discussion on the study of rhetoric today.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 0 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper contends that the study of rhetoric is too often ignored in today's classrooms. It explains that in the ancient world rhetoric was a major object of study in and of itself. The paper examines rhetoric as it is understood and applied in Aristotle the Nichomachean ethics. The author reviews the intellectual construct informing rhetorical writing and thinking so that the reader may have a better understanding of how this intellectual construct eventually manifests itself on both the printed page and in the spoken word.
From the Paper
"The study of rhetoric is too often ignored in today's classrooms. However, in the ancient world, rhetoric was a major object of study in and of itself. The following paper will examine rhetoric as it is understood and applied in Aristotle's the Nichomachean ethics. Specifically, the following pages will review the intellectual construct informing rhetorical writing and thinking so that the reader may have a better understanding of how this intellectual construct eventually manifests itself on both the printed page and in the spoken word. As should hopefully become apparent, rhetoric is more than merely a contrived means of persuading people; it is also a way of thinking about things. With this in mind, it is to a discussion of Aristotelian rhetoric that this paper now turns. Aristotle most commonly defines rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion". In other words ..."
| |
|
Rhetoric in Modern-Day Proceedings, 2004.
An examination of the modern-day influence that rhetoric has on governmental processes.
3,000 words (approx. 12.0 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 88.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the term 'rhetoric' is used as philosophical advocacy for the validity of knowledge and critical topics concerning public policy. The paper deals with the importance of rhetoric in modern-day proceedings and its influence on governmental processes from decision making by presidents to that of the Congress. It also argues that rhetoric is far removed from reality.
From the Paper
"Honestly, however, it can be seen that the political discourses are being aimed to serve other objectives rather than simply put forth a description of real facts. It is evident that the leaders resort to deception, statements of ambiguous nature, and omission of critical issues for fear of contradiction without even taking care of the way the audiences construe their statements. It is therefore, imperative that the political deliberations are not to be taken as an honest account of the real world facts or the account of own visualizations of the speaker but to be analyzed in the perspectives of social objectives that it aims to fulfill."
| |
|
Plato: Rhetoric Critique, 2003.
An examination of Plato's critique of rhetoric.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines Plato's critique of rhetoric as witnessed in the Socratic dialogue known as the Gorgias that argues rhetoric is not an effective method of communication particularly when compared to the dialectic. It also compares Plato's views of civic rhetoric with those of Aristotle.
From the Paper
"Even though Aristotle agreed with Plato on a number of ideas, they disagreed on a variety of significant philosophical and practical concepts. One of these was the best form for civic rhetoric. Plato argues in the Gorgias ..."
| |
|
Truman's Rhetoric During the Cold War, 2000.
A review of President Harry Truman's rhetoric during the first years of the Cold War immediately after World War II and the following years.
2,751 words (approx. 11.0 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 82.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how President Truman's rhetorical style and manner of outlining the objectives and direction of American politics, brought a radical change to the rhetoric of American politics especially during the Cold War. The paper examines the phases that Truman's rhetorical context follows, focusing on his rhetoric in the first years of the Cold War just after World War II and the following years.
Outline:
Introduction
Propaganda during the Cold War
a) Period of Naivete
b) Period of Hysteria
Evaluation
From the Paper
"According to Medhurst (1988), between 1945 to 1947, Truman exhibited rhetorical failures by choosing the rhetorically "inappropriate strategy of silence and noncommitment" (p.54) when confronted with the inflexible and deceitful politics of the Soviet Union. Medhurst states that the President's rhetoric during this period, was reticent and one which failed to inform the Americans about the arising problems of Soviet "expansionism, intimidation and support for indigenous armed minorities" (p. 55). In fact, Medhurst defines Truman's rhetoric as a "rather laudatory of the Soviet Union" (p. 55) and points out that it was due to his forthright, clear and authoritarian rhetorical manner that lead to the perception that the Soviet-American relations were mildly positive. However, even though this authoritarian style attempted to portray the Soviet Union in a mildly positive light in the eyes of the American public, "rhetoric had not mirrored reality" (Medhurst, 1988, p. 56). Vague assertions such as "we shall refuse to recognize any government imposed upon any nation by the force of any foreign power" (as cited in Medhurst 1988, p. 56), stated by the President in a foreign policy address in 1945, "were as close as he would come to overt criticism of the Soviet regime" (Medhurst, 1988, p.56). "
|
|
|
