The Species of Rhetoric | Aristotle's Rhetoric pt. 3

Main ideas, concepts, and lessons

• Aristotle’s broader view of rhetoric

  • Rhetoric is useful not because it seeks “absolute truth” like philosophy/dialectic, but because it helps people get things done using truths and premises we already have.
  • After defining rhetoric and why it matters, Aristotle explains what rhetoric does and how it operates.

• Rhetoric divided into three “species”

  • A speech involves:
    • a speaker
    • a subject
    • an audience/hearer (the addressee)
  • The purpose/objective is tied to the hearer, and audiences tend to fall into three groups, each with a different rhetorical focus:
    • Democratic assemblies (decide about the future)
    • Jurors (decide about the past)
    • Observers (evaluate the speaker’s skill; focus on present display)

• Purpose-driven categories (the key framework)

  • Each species is identified by the rhetorical purpose:
    1. Deliberative rhetoric → persuade about future actions
    2. Judicial rhetoric → argue about past events (what was just/unjust)
    3. Epideictic rhetoric → praise/blame to display values and character (present-oriented)

• Practical takeaway

  • Even though real communication overlaps categories, Aristotle’s framework remains useful because it helps you:
    • clarify what your audience expects and what your rhetorical purpose is
    • choose the right rhetorical strategy:
      • persuade (deliberative)
      • justify (judicial)
      • delight/display (epideictic)

---

Detailed breakdown of each species (methods / instruction-like guidance)

1) Deliberative rhetoric (future-oriented)

• Who it addresses

  • People making decisions about:
    • laws, taxes, war, and government policy

• Core purpose

  • To advise what should be done by weighing options for the future.

• Main task of the deliberative speaker

  • Articulate the advantageous and harmful consequences of proposed actions:
    • urge: claim an option is better
    • dissuade: argue an option is worse

• Types of questions it responds to

  • Urgent social/political crises where time doesn’t allow long philosophical deliberation, e.g.:
    • “Should we go to war?”
    • “Should taxes be lowered?”
    • “Should we outlaw something?”

• Practical guidance emphasized

  • Your “one job” is essentially to show your audience that your proposed action will be helpful or harmful in the future.
  • Simplicity of framing is presented as beneficial, even if real life is complex.

---

2) Judicial rhetoric (past-oriented)

• Who it addresses

  • Jurors/courts (and similar situations where outcomes depend on interpreting events)

• Core purpose

  • To establish whether what happened in the past was just or unjust.

• Main focus

  • Not “what will happen,” but what has happened and how to interpret it.

• Why rhetoric is needed

  • Past events may be uncertain or contested:
    • limited witnesses
    • conflicting accounts
    • difficulty determining motives and facts
  • Because uncertainty exists, rhetoric becomes a tool for arguing likelihood and interpretation.

• Examples given

  • Court disputes (e.g., what exactly happened in an incident, who was responsible, what motives were present).
  • Informal analogs:
    • a student emailing a teacher to justify absence (often including excessive detail to support justification).

• Practical guidance emphasized

  • When persuading about the past being justified, consider:
    • what details the audience actually needs
    • what is likely excessive or unnecessary (especially noted in the school-email example)

---

3) Epideictic rhetoric (present-oriented display)

• Who it addresses

  • Audiences who are observing the speaker’s skill rather than deciding policy or legal outcomes.

• Core purpose

  • Praise and blame—highlighting what is honorable or shameful.

• Meaning / intuition behind the name

  • “Epideictic” is described as meaning to indicate/point (related to an “index/pointer finger” idea).

• End goal

  • To show what the audience values and admires right now.

• Relationship to time

  • More closely tied to the present:
    • it points to something admirable/shameful
    • it may follow with reactions like “isn’t that amazing?” or “how awful!”

• Features emphasized

  • Strong attention to style and linguistic virtuosity.
  • Used for occasions where display and character evaluation matter.

• Example context

  • Funerals are mentioned as a frequent use case to showcase honor/shamefulness of the deceased.
  • A referenced rhetorician (described as “Richard land them,” likely an imperfect subtitle transcription) is cited for the idea that:
    • style reinforces meaning,
    • transforming grief into something more pleasurable and (in the retelling) hopeful.

• Video’s framing of epideictic

  • Portrayed as “for its own sake,” emphasizing intrinsic satisfaction:
    • eulogies, poetry, and enjoyable conversation are given as natural forms.

---

How the three species interact (limitations / overlap)

• Although Aristotle presents these categories as distinct, boundaries are “a little fuzzier” in real life:
  • speakers can mix elements (praise/blame, past references, future projections)
• Still, Aristotle’s structure helps you:
  • recognize and control your rhetorical purpose
  • match your strategy to that purpose

---

Sources / speakers featured (as named in the subtitles)

• Aristotle (subject of the talk; “Aristotle’s rhetoric”)
• Plato (mentioned as an earlier philosopher who issued harsh condemnations of rhetoric)
• Richard land them (mentioned in connection with a funeral/epideictic example; name appears in subtitles as “Richard land them,” possibly imprecise due to auto-generation)
• Kenneth Burke (called a “rhetorical theorist and friend of the show” who is quoted/credited with the idea “pure persuasion”)

Spoken hosts / narrators

• The video includes host(s)/narrator(s) via “hi and welcome back” and “dear friends,” but no specific person’s name for the host is provided in the subtitles.