Aristotle rhetoric

ARISTOTLE RHETORIC The art of communication is effective in convincing the audience in any situation and this ability defines who an orator is. In public speaking, the connection between ideas, emotions and perception work together to influence the direction of success for any form of interpersonal interaction. Aristotle is one of the global icons who advanced the idea of rhetoric as a science although it should not absolutely be considered as such. To make a clear understanding of rhetoric and its use in the present day political process, it would be important to identify its three species as defined by Aristotle. An overall belief of Aristotle in respect to rhetoric is that it can help in the defense of justice and truth, produce persuasion towards the individuals with limited intellectual audience with less demonstrative intellectual comprehension (Gross & Walzer, 2000). The last effect of its application is that it will ensure that all the sides are considered. In practice, there are three factors that contribute to the rhetoric and these include the individual character, the emotional induction in the audience by the speaker and the convincing power in the arguments presented. Political process is a critical aspect of the society that uses this concept to achieve its goals. In the view of Aristotle, the personal character presents a notion of credibility or otherwise to the public.
The different genres of rhetoric include; Forensic rhetoric which is mainly aimed at persuading an audience that a particular action which was taken in the past was just. Deliberative rhetoric is primarily aimed at making the audience believe that a future action that is about to be taken will be beneficial (Kennedy, 2011). The Epideictic rhetoric on the hand mainly aims at making people see that a particular subject or person is noble In regard to the ethical concerns and social responsibility related to justice in rhetoric, politicians seek to establish the harmfulness of a particular course of action or propose its expediency. In other words, he will urge the public to take his side of thought on a given agenda. However, the challenge is that, in legal cases, the accuser may be denied an otherwise outright justice due to the ability of the accused to manipulate thought of the hearing committee.
This the same case with politicians who may manipulate their way to elective posts on mere lies provided they convince the public. Like parties in a law-case, there is a need to establish justice or otherwise in any given action. Whichever the side the jury takes is a product of ability to convince the audience of the logic behind presented facts. This elevates the speaker to the point of credibility thereby getting unwavering support for a given course of action proposed.
Politician uses rhetoric to carry out their campaigns. They have the ability to identify what is convincing to win the support of the people (Wren, 2007). They persuade people to vote them in so that they can make better socio-economic changes in the community. Drumming support for constitutional amendments or referendum requires oratory ability to prove a case for and against a given issue to the public. This is a rhetoric concept that even the politicians use to win cases in court.
References
Gross, A. G., & Walzer, A. E. (2000). Rereading Aristotles Rhetoric. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University Press.
Kennedy, G. A. (2011). A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wren, J. T. (2007). Inventing leadership: The challenge of democracy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.