ul·u·late [uhl-yuh-leyt, yool-] Show IPA
verb (used without object), ul·u·lat·ed, ul·u·lat·ing.
1.
to howl, as a dog or a wolf; hoot, as an owl.
2.
to utter howling sounds, as in shrill, wordless lamentation; wail.
3.
to lament loudly and shrilly.
You have to be precise about issues and stuff like that. I can never understand anything they're saying.
rhetoric (ˈrɛtərɪk)
— n
1. the study of the technique of using language effectively
2. the art of using speech to persuade, influence, or please; oratory
3. excessive use of ornamentation and contrivance in spoken or written discourse; bombast
4. speech or discourse that pretends to significance but lacks true meaning: all the politician says is mere rhetoric
This actually reminded me of this post I made recently about Rhetoric:
Teaches you how to avoid constant conflict and arguing and learn how to avoid conversing in an endless stream of insults...
Liber III vel Jugorvm I remember thinking was a text that can teach a person how to control themselves from spewing a constant stream of insults, tames one into becoming a Gentleman and avoid the need to "Fight" so much.
rhetoric (ˈrɛtərɪk)
— n
1. the study of the technique of using language effectively
2. the art of using speech to persuade, influence, or please; oratory
3. excessive use of ornamentation and contrivance in spoken or written discourse; bombast
4. speech or discourse that pretends to significance but lacks true meaning: all the politician says is mere rhetoric
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_(Aristotle[/url])
It doesn't tell you directly... but let me give you a little hint...
Because people that are like really smart know what he's talking about...
It's about how to deal with imbeciles that can't read or write properly that do nothing but for lack of a better term "argue" with each other
In what one would consider regular... Conversation?
Let me give you another hint for all the idiots in the crowd...
[url]http://hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib3.html[/url]
[B]Liber III vel Jugorum[/B] - Aleister Crowley
An instruction for the control of speech, action, and thought.
[B]The Art of Rhetoric by Aristotle[/B]:
Chapter One
Aristotle first defines rhetoric as the counterpart (antistrophos) of dialectic (Bk. 1:1:1-2). He explains the similarities between the two but fails to comment on the differences. Here he introduces the term enthymeme (Bk. 1:1:3). This chapter is inconsistent with what follows in the others however.
Chapter Two
Aristotle’s famous definition of rhetoric is viewed as the ability in any particular case to see the available means of persuasion. He defines pisteis as atechnic (inartistic) and entechnic (artistic). Of the pisteis provided through speech there are three parts: ethos, pathos, and logos. He introduces paradigms and syllogisms as means of persuasion.
Chapter Three
Introduces the three genres of rhetoric: deliberative, forensic, epideictic. Here he also touches on the “ends” the orators of each of these genres hope to reach with their persuasions – which are discussed in further detail in later chapters (Bk. 1:3:5-7).
Chapter Four
Aristotle discusses the types of political topics of deliberative rhetoric. The five most common are finance, war and peace, national defense, imports and exports, and the framing of laws.
Chapter Five
Aristotle discusses the different ethical topics of deliberative rhetoric. Aristotle identifies the goal of human action with “happiness” and describes the many factors contributing to it (Bk. 1:5:5-18).
Chapter Six
This is a continuation of Chapter Five, explaining in greater detail the stoikhea (elements) of the “good” described in the previous chapter.
Chapter Seven
Introduces the term koinon of degree. Discusses the ‘ends’ of deliberative rhetoric in relation to the greater good or more advantageous.
Chapter Eight
Aristotle defines and discusses the four forms of politeia (constitution) useful in deliberative rhetoric: democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and monarchy.
Chapter Nine
This chapter discusses the virtues and concepts of to kalon (the honorable) included in epideictic rhetoric. Aristotle describes what makes certain topics appropriate or worthy for praise or blame. He also states that it is important to highlight certain traits of the subject of praise.
Chapter Ten
Discusses what syllogisms should be derived from kategoria (accusations) and apologia (defenses) for judicial rhetoric. Also introduces the wrongdoing, which is useful for judicial rhetoric.
Chapter Eleven
This chapter discusses the many different types of hedone (pleasure) useful for judicial rhetoric. Aristotle states these as the reasons for people doing wrong.
Chapter Twelve
This chapter, also about judicial rhetoric, discusses people’s dispositions of mind and whom people wrong from the hedone discussed in the previous chapter. Aristotle emphasizes the importance of willingness, or intentions, of wrongdoings.
Chapter Thirteen
Aristotle classifies all acts that are just and unjust defined in judicial rhetoric. He also distinguishes what kinds of actions are fair and unfair with being just.
Chapter Fourteen
This chapter parallels the koinon described in Chapter Seven. Aristotle is clarifying the magnitude in relation to questions of “wrongdoing” meant for judicial rhetoric.
Chapter Fifteen
Aristotle is summarizing the arguments available to a speaker in dealing with evidence that supports or weakens a case. These atechnic pisteis contain laws, witnesses, contracts, tortures, and oaths.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic[/url]
Dialectic -
Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method) is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to Indian and European philosophy since antiquity. The word dialectic originated in ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with reasoned arguments.[1] Dialectics is different from debate, wherein the debaters are committed to their points of view, and mean to win the debate, either by persuading the opponent, proving their argument correct, or proving the opponent's argument incorrect – thus, either a judge or a jury must decide who wins the debate. Dialectics is also different from rhetoric, wherein the speaker uses logos, pathos, or ethos to persuade listeners to take their side of the argument.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme[/url]
An enthymeme (Greek: ἐνθύμημα, enthumēma),
An enthymeme (Greek: ἐνθύμημα, enthumēma), in its modern sense, is an informally stated syllogism (a three-part deductive argument) with an unstated assumption that must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion. In an enthymeme, part of the argument is missing because it is assumed. In a broader usage, the term "enthymeme" is sometimes used to describe an incomplete argument of forms other than the syllogism,[1] or a less-than-100% argument.[2] For Aristotle, who defined it in his Rhetoric, an enthymeme was a "rhetorical syllogism" which was based on probable opinions, thus distinguishing it from a scientific syllogism. It is aimed at persuasion while scientific syllogism is aimed at demonstration.[3] This definition of an enthymeme held fast until the 20th century, when Saul Kripke developed Modal logic. In the context of Modal logic, with Semantic tableaux as developed by Evert Willem Beth, the definition of an enthymeme alters: Rather than suppressing one of the major premises, minor premises, or the conclusion, any incorrect logical inference or proof that is persuasive, satisfies a concept of an enthymeme.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)