Aristotle in his Rhetoric greatly expanded the area of rhetoric, as compared with the point spread on it at the time. Since the speech, in his opinion, has the character of universality and can be applied in a wide variety of cases and because the act when the board, with all sorts of beliefs and explanations given to one person or for the entire assembly (which is the case, she) essentially the same way, the rhetoric is as little as dialectic, is dealing with any one particular area: it embraces all spheres of human life. Rhetoric, understood in this sense, are enjoyed by all at every turn: it is equally necessary in matters relating to everyday needs of the individual, and in cases of national importance: once a person starts to decline to something another person or to discourage it from something He must be using the rhetoric, consciously or unconsciously. Recognizing rhetoric in such a way as Aristotle defines it as the ability to find possible means of persuasion on each of the subject [source not given 51 days].
The definition of rhetoric is becoming clear aim of the Aristotle in his treatise: he wanted to, on the basis of observation, to give the general form of public speaking, to indicate what should guide the speaker or anyone who wants to convince anyone of anything. Consistent with this, he divided his treatise into three parts. The first part is devoted to the analysis of the principles on which he (ie, each talking about something) might lead to something of its listeners, or reject them on something, can praise or decry something. The second part talks about those personal traits and characteristics of the speaker, through which he can inspire the confidence of their students and thus achieve its true purpose, that is, to persuade or dissuade them. The third part deals with the special (technical) part of the rhetoric: Aristotle said here of the ways of expression, which must be in the speech (of style), and the construction of oratorical speech.
Many subtle psychological observations on the interaction of speaker and audience (for example, about the importance of humor, pathos, the impact on young people and the elderly) and the analysis of force used in the speech of evidence attached to the work of Aristotle's universal importance. She not only had a strong influence on all subsequent developments in European rhetoric, but still useful in our time: some of the Aristotle on the subject of scientific study and now. By adopting many of the provisions of Aristotle as dogmatic truth, rhetoric in ancient Greece, and later in Western Europe, but declined to empirical research methods, return to the way of practical guidance, which came sophist.