| Accessories By Manufacturer | |
|
|
Email Newsletter
Get info on Sales, Events, New Products, and More!
|
|
|
|
|
| Logos and Power in Isocrates and Aristotle (Studies in Rhetoric/Communication) | 
 enlarge | Author: Ekaterina V. Haskins
Creator: Thomas W. Benson
Publisher: University of South Carolina Press
Category: Book
List Price: $34.95
Buy New: $30.95
You Save: $4.00 (11%)
New (18) Used (8) from $27.83
Avg. Customer Rating:  2 reviews
Sales Rank: 1370055
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 168
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.9
Dimensions (in): 9 x 5.9 x 0.8
ISBN: 1570035261
Dewey Decimal Number: 885.01
EAN: 9781570035265
ASIN: 1570035261
Publication Date: March 2004
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
As one of the founding philosophers of the Western tradition, Aristotle raised many of the issues that still animate scholarly debates in the humanities. By contrast, Isocrates, despite his considerable reputation in antiquity and the Renaissance as an educator, became a marginal figure in the intellectual history of the West. In academic histories of philosophy and rhetoric, Isocrates occupies a much less illustrious place than Aristotle does. Our understanding of the very terms philosophy and rhetoric is largely indebted to the legacy of Platos Academy and Aristotles Lyceum. Logos and Power in Isocrates and Aristotle presents Isocrates vision of discourse as a worthy rival, rather than a mere precursor, of Aristotles Rhetoric. Casting Isocrates and Aristotle as opponents in a debate over the character, resources, and ends of rhetorical education, Ekaterina V. Haskins argues that much of what Aristotle had to say about the status of rhetoric and the role of discourse in the life of a Greek city-state may have been an implicit reaction to Isocrates. The contrast between Isocrates and Aristotle is brought into sharper relief by the author's consideration of cultural, political, and intellectual contexts in which these thinkers articulated their views. On Haskinss reading, Isocrates offers a more comprehensive and culturally attuned theory of civic discourse and education than does Aristotle, whose intellectual project disengages moral philosophy from the contingencies of public culture and introduces rhetoric merely as an art serviceable to a philosophically trained statesman. Haskins terms Isocrates approach to discourse "constitutive" and Aristotles "instrumental" and shows how the former is more congenial to the goals of contemporary rhetorical theory and pedagogy.
|
| Customer Reviews:
 The Capacity of Persuasion May 9, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Definition of Rhetoric- capacity of persuasion. Plato is critical of the Rhetoric and the tragic poetry. Rhetoric is approach to political public speeches in the forum. Plato thought that they clouded the mind and thus created a part of his critique of democracy in general. Plato thinks Socrates was killed by rhetoric used by the Athenian democracy. Plato feared the danger of democracy. Poetry appeals to the base human emotions rhetoric, and poetry block rational truth according to Plato. Rhetoric is psychological force of language vs. logical force of language. Psychology leads people to believe things based on emotions. Speech must appeal to the masses in a democracy. Psychology is persuasion, logic is truth. Deduction and induction is arguing logically. Plato says rhetoric is not a technc, (craft) nor is poetry, because they are undisciplined and not uniform in design. Thus, appeal to psychology and emotion can never be done away with in a democracy, thus Plato abhors them and democracy. Plato calls it sophistry this psychological appeal and democracy requires this to exist, so the problem persists. Plato is clear and consistent in his abhorrence of sophistry and democracy.
Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics are an alternative to Plato. Aristotle's rhetoric tries to strike a middle position. Aristotle says rhetoric and poetry are a technc, the Rhetoric is a handbook. Aristotle says speaker needs to appeal to appropriate information for the particular setting. Much like a lawyer's argument, not just relying on facts, need to appeal to people's emotions. Aristotle does understand that rhetoric can be used in a harmful way.
Aristotle lays out three features in rhetoric:
1.Ethos= character of the speaker, also charisma, speaker earns the audience's trust, use of body language.
2.Pathos= condition of the hearer.
3.Logos= essential bearing on political persuasion, truth.
Thus, Plato's concern by definition excludes speech because it deals with emotion. These three conditions must be in play for a speech to be successful. The rhetoric contains a detailed analysis of the different human emotions and how to elicit them in a speech. Aristotle knows the speaker must be a good student of human nature to tap into human emotions.
Epistcmc is scientific knowledge. Phroncsis is the capacity of the soul for using education, experience and habit all this is in the ethics. This is the same in political world so politics is not an episteme no scientific reasoning. The things that come up in politics are not deduced scientifically. In politics, humans use deliberation between several possible outcomes unlike math where there is only one correct answer. Political speech is contentious because the nature of politics is contentious.
There are two circumstances in rhetoric.
1.Judicial rhetoric has to do with the past like in a court case.
2.Deliberative rhetoric has to do with the future, what decision should we make in political policies.
I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.
 The real rhetoric September 28, 2005
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Haskins takes on the massive challenge of undermining Aristotles' overwhelming influence in contemporary rhetorical studies, and achieves most of what she sets out to do. Debunking Aristotelian thinking is tricky, since most of the underlying assumptions are so imbedded in our culture: Our minds exist apart from the rest of us. Communication takes place between discreet entities. We are transparent to ourselves. Value and fact are different categories. Etc. Haskins manages this difficulty most of the way, presenting Isokrates' vision of rhetorical education as the alternative to conservative Aristotelian pedagogy. The book is very well written and interesting if not excactly entertaining. The only point that could be stronger, is the final chapter on how to apply Isokrates in contemporary classrooms, which suffers a bit from lack of illustrations of the theory and actual examples, but makes up for this by the spirited voice of a scholar who genuinely believes her work is important. I agree.
|
|
|
Site by: Troy Peterson | |
