Rhetoric

Rhetoric is the art of discourse.

Rhetoric studies the form of communication rather than the content.

Rhetoric is one of the core subjects in the trivium.

Rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectic. All men make use of both for all men attempt to discuss statement and maintain them, to defend themselves and attack others. Ordinary men do so ad-hoc, but it possible to study formally.

Storytellers rule the world. -- Plato

Contents

1   Structure

1.1   Branches

Rhetoric consists of three branches:

  1. Deliberative: to exhort or dissaude
  2. Judicidal: to accuse or defend
  3. Epideictic: Cermonial, to commemorate or blame

1.2   Cannon

Rhetoric consists of five parts (or canons):

  1. Invention
  2. Arrangement
  3. Style
  4. Memory
  5. Delivery

Rhetoric shares with dialectic training in invention and arrangement, which has sometimes reduced rhetoric to style alone.

# Rhetorical Operation (Category of Change)

The four fundamental rhetorical operations of classical rhetoric are:

  1. Addition
  2. Subtraction (omission)
  3. Transposition
  4. Substitution (permutation)

# History

# Analysis

## Addition

  • Metaplasm
  • Synoymia
  • Polsysyndeton
  • Epitheton

## Subtraction

## Transposition

## Substitution

# Purpose

The four fundamental rhetorical operations serve to encompass the various figure of speech.


  • It seems perhaps we can divide up the modes of rhetoric into:
    • Substance
      • logos
    • Form
      • ethos
      • pathos
    • Some discourse has no substance to it (basically tautological things)
      • Motivational speeches
      • Certain persuasive speeches where rationality doesn't apply (e.g seduction)
      • Much of fiction, myths, entertainment
      • Small talk
    • Perhaps we could even divide up even further tracts of life up this way
      • Some things we do rationally ("work")
      • Some things we do irrationally ("life")
    • Great literature uses form and substance
      • Which leads to analysis
    • Fashion is all form and not much substance
      • Generally there seems to be a divide on what makes a meaningful life; form and substance, but there is no substance
  • Game/rhetoric is perhaps best understood in sociolinguistics?

  • It seems to me like the whole thing of game mirror rhetoric well.
    • Sophist = PUA; focuses on form rather than content, gets a lot of hate and fear
    • Self-improvement/logican focuses on content rather than form
  • I wonder how implicature works over text and why it leads to so much going wrong.

  • The lack of stacks and things in Python makes it hard to communicate clearly because you unintentionally communicate too much

    • Ints and bigints are silly, but lists say too much

2   History

Rhetoric was first treated by Aristotle.

3   Example

In the following, Uber managed to spread the idea that Lyft is guilty of the same shenanigans, while sounding like it took the high roading -- and without the burden of offering any evidence. Then, Uber sympathized with Lyft's "expected" desperation:

Lyft's claims against Uber are baseless and simply untrue. Furthermore,
Lyft's own drivers and employees, including one of Lyft's founders, have
canceled 12,900 trips on Uber. But instead of providing the long list of
questionable tactics that Lyft has used over the years, we are focusing on
building and maintaining the best platform for both consumers and drivers.

These attacks from Lyft are unfortunate but somewhat expected. A number of
Lyft investors have recently been pushing Uber to acquire Lyft. One of their
largest shareholders recently warned that Lyft would "go nuclear" if we do
not acquire them. We can only assume that the recent Lyft attacks are part
of that strategy.

PR efforts were wrapped around a new theme: "Start Every Day With a Good Night's Sleep," written to place sleep in a position of primary importance—at the start of every good day, not the finish.

Criticism:

X, thanks for the reply. There are many points here and I'll do my best to address your concerns below.

That's really great feedback. Thank you.

4   Further Reading

5   References

Paralipsis:

I ain't saying she a gold digger, but she ain't messing with no broke xxx. - Kanye West

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721415595023

One of the most important factors to predicting which political groups are likely to exhibit violent tendencies is the use of emotions in rhetoric by group leadership. A leader's job is to reframe recent events & construct the narrative for followers to spread. (2/12)

Leaders provide the explanations for followers to make sense of recent events & their feelings about these events. They provide the scapegoats to blame, and occasionally provide solutions. In the process, they also tell their followers what emotions they should be feeling. (3/12)

Most studies are in agreement that 3 emotions have to be present for violence to occur: Anger, Contempt & Disgust. Anger is a propellant, it spurs you on to do something. It's rocket fuel, if channelled right, it puts you on the moon. If not, it burns your house down. (4/12)

Contempt are feelings about hierarchy & superiority. It's the emotion that allows you to feel that your opponent is beneath you, either because they are inhuman or because they are immoral. It's the emotion that tells you that they don't deserve your respect or civility. (5/12)

Disgust is the reaction to contamination. It implies that something is impure or unclean and must be removed before the contamination spreads. This could be a reaction to spoiled milk, or vermin, and because we can think abstractly, other human beings. (6/12)

Any of the three emotions are caustic, but when combined, they act like gunpowder. Leaders usually transmit the emotions they are feeling to their followers in a process called emotional contagion. So if you exhibit all 3, odds are so will your followers. (7/12)

MLK Jr was pissed. Gandhi was pissed. Hitler was pissed. All three leaders were angry, but violence only followed Hitler's speeches. That's because in the year leading up to their respective events, Hitler's speeches had contempt & disgust where MLK jr & Gandhi didn't (8/12)

And it makes sense. Contempt tells you that the other guys are either immoral or inhuman. Disgust tells you that you need to remove them. Hence terms like "ethnic cleansing". Inaction eventually becomes immoral because these "contagions" are seen as threats to our safety (9/12)


A rhetorical Warren habit that I’ve just noticed: When she’s listing ideas, she tends to say “oh, and how about this” at the end, as if she just can’t stop coming up with them. “I could do this all day.”