Michael WinterMs. ChoEnglish 102Jan 12, 2012Aristotle RhetoricHonestly I have never heard of the word rhetoric. I did not even pronounce the word right after I learned it even existed. I have an understanding of the meaning of rhetorical arguments on the other hand. This reading of Aristotle’s book one of rhetoric first proved to be alittle confusing, after a while although, I found a better understanding of the meaning of the book. The books main purpose was to present a main purpose for rhetoric and a definition. I found that it offered detailed discussion about the main types of rhetoric. Aristotle starts the book by defining rhetoric. He explains the similarities between rhetoric and dialect, but does notexplain the differences. This did not make much sense to me. Rhetoric, according to Aristotle, isthe ability to see persuasion in any conversation. I continued to read and found that there are three different types of rhetoric; deliberative, forensic, and epidiectic. Aristotle begins to explain that there is always a conclusion that the person speaking is trying to reach. In chapter 4 he continues to discuss the types of political topics of deliberative rhetoric. I began to wonder what he could start to discuss on the political subjects. I found out that the five most common are finance, war and peace, national defense, imports and exports, and the framing of laws.Aristotle discusses the different ethical topics of deliberative rhetoric. Aristotle identifies the goalof human action with “happiness” and describes the many factors contributing to it. I found this to be somewhat wrong because everyone is different and therefore not everyone achieves happiness from the same things. I didn’t understand how he could define the factors to the equation for happiness. Throughout the ending of the book Aristotle discusses the difference in what actions are just and what actions are unjust. After reading this book with no previous knowledge of rhetoric I have found many new facts. I did have trouble understanding what was fully meant by Aristotle. He had some valid points and some that were invalid. The fact that he thinks he can determine what makes a personhappy did not make sense to me. He simply has no way of knowing what makes every single person happy in this