![]() Wow, there’s a couple amendments in here I’d like to make. Both are concerned with both sides of the argument through the theory of deduction and induction. They both accept certain premises but are not bound down by the principles of specific form. In conclusion, one could accept Aristotle’s view that rhetoric and dialectic are closely related and resemble each other. Dialectic is argumentative and rhetoric is non- argumentative.Dialectic thrives on two way intelligent argument. Rhetoric assumes that the audience has limited intelligence and will accept any bombastic discourse.Rhetoric is more applicable in matters of the state or public, but dialectic can apply to any common matter.What this means is that rhetoric proceeds in a flow and speech is continuous, while dialectic is fractured frequently by questions and answers. Rhetoric is a one way street, whereas dialectic is a two way street.The speaker has much less power to convince the listener as he is constantly stopped by questions and arguments against his proposition. Dialectic, however, is more of a private place dispensation and has very few people listening in and participating in the deliberation. The audience is usually so swayed by the words of the speaker that they stop thinking for themselves and are transported to the utopia promised by the speaker, transported to a future time and space which promises the sky. Rhetoric is usually delivered in public spaces like assemblies, stadiums, political rallies and other large gatherings. ![]() Great speakers have used rhetoric to influence masses over periods of time.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |