Views on Rhetoric

James Herrick’s definition of rhetoric makes the art itself easier to understand. I personally like how he refers to rhetoric as “…a systematic study and intentional practice of effective symbolic expression.” This portrays rhetoric in a light where it is less about tricking people and more about being a convincing speaker. I think because of that, this definition is more likable and accepted by most people. To determine effectiveness of rhetoric, one would have to see how others react when it is used. I think the most effective way to use rhetoric and be convincing is by doing it naturally. The audience shouldn’t blatantly feel as if they are being persuaded into something.

James Herrick’s definition differs from Aristotle’s because Aristotle’s view of rhetoric is that it is just a persuasive technique that affects the audience’s judgement by using ethos, pathos, and logos. Aristotle takes a more emotional approach to his definition of rhetoric whereas James Herrick views it as an art of expression.

Calling rhetoric “the art of bullshit’ is interesting because I do not see it that way. I see rhetoric as something that motivates people to act a certain way (if it is effective). We use rhetoric every day, naturally and without being aware of doing it. Therefore, if rhetoric is the art of bullshit then I guess humans walk around ‘bullshitting’ each other on a daily basis. I’d rather be more optimistic and view rhetoric as a stimulation to an action.