Reviews for Poetics and Rhetoric (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)

The average rating for Poetics and Rhetoric (Barnes & Noble Classics Series) based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-05-31 00:00:00 John Hernandez CORPUS ARISTOTELICUS Rhetoric and Poetics By ARISTOTLE This treatise dates from the 4th century BC. The basics of Aristotle's system of Rhetoric had "After that served as a touchstone" influencing this art from ancient through modern times. The edition translated by W. Rhys Roberts is bright and pleasant to read. Aristotle was lucky to have lived at a time when there was no censure or politically correct language to be used. He writes like he would have spoken, an everyday style. Rhetoric is the counterpart of dialectic. Both are considered within the general knowledge of all persons and belong to no specific science. The modes of persuasion are the only true constituents of the art; everything else is merely accessory. If the general language used for this study is simple, there are however a few rare words to assimilate. Syllogism, enthymeme, encomium, and others. Persuasion is a sort of demonstration. An orator's demonstration is an enthymeme. The enthymeme is a sort of syllogism, and the consideration of arguments of all kinds is the business of dialectic or one of its branches. Everybody is using the art of persuasion on a day to day life, but generally speaking, but all Depends on who are the listeners to speeches. A politician will try to persuade that his ideas will bring peace and prosperity to the country. A lawyer will try to persuade a law court that his client is telling the truth and obtain a favourable judgment. A ceremonial speaker could be the organizer of Olympic Games and hopes to raise enthusiasm for the winners of the competition. A remarkable absence in this treatise is Religion. Aristotle was fortunate to live at a time when no religion was known, and no preachers of any kind were trying to persuade, convince or scare a population to believe in a God or the devil. Ancient Greeks had their Theogony as immortalized by Hesiod. It seems that no one tried to promote or repeal this tradition at that time. For me, an additional pleasure of reading Aristotle is the historical background, the immediate contemporary, or the ancient or mythology. Let me give you some quotes: On pleading in the case of 'Orestes of Theodectes': "It is right that she who slays her lord should die. It is right, too, that the son should avenge his father. Very good; these two things are what Orestes has done. Still, perhaps the two things, once they are put together, do not form a right act. The fallacy might also be said to be due to omission since the speaker fails to say by whose hand a husband slayer should die." "The question whether it is unjust for a city to enslave its innocent neighbours often does not trouble them at all." "Thus they praise Achilles because he championed his fallen friend Patroclus, though he knew that this meant death and that otherwise he need not die: yet while to die thus was the nobler thing for him to do, the expedient thing was to live on." Aristotle's definition of happiness: "Good birth, plenty of friends, good friends, wealth, plenty of children, a happy old age, also such bodily excellences as health, beauty, strength, large stature, athletic powers, together with fame, honour, good luck and virtue. Wealth is made of plenty coined money, the ownership of numerous, large, and beautiful estates, livestock and slaves. Communities, as well as individuals, should lack none of these perfections, in their women as well as in their men. Where, as among the Lacedaemonians, the state of their women is bad, almost half of human life is spoiled. Friendship: a friendly feeling towards anyone as wishing for him or her, what you believe to be good things, not for your own sake but his, and being inclined, so far as you can, to bring these things about. A friend is a sort of person who shares your pleasure in what is good and your pain in what is unpleasant. Kindness may be defined as helpfulness towards someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped. So reading this work has for me different pleasures and advantages: I am not a politician, so I will not make use of persuasion in public affairs. I am not a lawyer so that I will make no use of persuasion at law court. I am not a ceremonial speaker, nor a preacher. The significant advantage of my new knowledge of Aristotle's Art of Persuasion will be in argumentations with my wife. I will now be highly qualified to have the last word.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-09-15 00:00:00 Michael Ace As I've mentioned before in other reviews, I read this more from a desire to study Aristotle thoroughly and less from an active interest in the subject matter. I have a tendency to want to be as well versed in an important thinker as I can be. That means I will expend some effort in research that might not seem altogether practical from the perspective of the casual observer. The first work on Poetics is not easily grouped with Aristotle's other works. It is apparently one of the earliest works dealing with poetry and tragedy from a critical perspective. That alone does make the work important. It also functions as a catalog of non-extant works. Sadly, many of the works that Aristotle refers to, no longer exist. Aristotle extrapolates certain rules from his fairly extensive knowledge of poetry. How practical his rules are, I can't comment on. I suppose I might revisit this work when I dedicate more time to studying Greek epic and tragedy. The second work on Rhetoric can be easily grouped with Aristotle's works on ethics and politics on one side, and with his logical works on the other side. One could see this work as a bridge between his ethical/political thought and his theories on logic. It is sort of a practical application of the purely theoretical ideas presented in those works. Aristotle's theories do lend themselves to a legal setting, so this seems to be an advancement from the early rhetoric of the sophists and from the later purely political rhetoric of people like Isocrates and Demosthenes. Cicero was apparently well acquainted with Aristotle's thoughts on Rhetoric. It probably would have been better to read this before reading Cicero, but it didn't happen that way. The book was worth reading. I found the commentary helpful, but took issue with some of the less relevant asides that the commentator indulged in. I give the work itself around 3-and-a-half to 4 stars. I'm not sure it's essential Aristotle, but due to the second work's relationship to his logical works and political/ethical works, it's important.