Aristotle defines rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.

" The argumentative modes of persuasion are the essence of the art of rhetoric: they appeal to the emotions and warp the audiences judgment. Of the modes of persuasion some belong to rhetoric and some do not. Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. According to Aristotle, our perception of a speakers character influences how believable or convincing we find what that person has to say. This is called the speaker's ethos. We are more likely to be persuaded by a person who we think has warmth, consideration, a good mind and wisdom. But even the ethos of a speaker can be misleading and hidden. The speaker can have negative intentions under their charismatic faade. Aristotle is not in favor of pathos, which is to appeal to emotions. He claims that you must remember that there is a difference between an argument that is logical and one that is simply persuasive. Politicians, advertisers, and everyday speakers understand that audiences are persuaded more by emotion than by reason. That is why you see these people use pathos all the time. Rhetoric today is not the same concept as it was in earlier times. This is due to the abuse: both in politics, where language becomes mere strategy and methodology, and in law, where the duty to defend a case becomes a severe manipulation of the truth. This is where we are today with what began as an honorable art. But even then, from the earliest times, philosophers were aware of the potential dangers and abuses surrounding a smooth voice, moral physique, and sensitive word in communities. This immoral abuse began many arguments on the nature of rhetoric as a subject of study. Aristotle explains how put in the wrong hands, rhetoric can be used for those with underlying motives to manipulate an audience negatively. Since those with bad purposes can use it to do great harm, we should not teach rhetoric. This is an idea that we are familiar with today. Adolf Hitler was able to do much harm in part because he was a skilled speaker. Skillful lawyers are often able to let guilty people go free, causing great harm in the community. Perhaps it would be better for everyone if there were no such thing as rhetoric.

The emotions in a speech are unnecessary to Aristotelian practical reason. Aristotles treatment of emotions has a bad reputation due to how manipulative it is. Aristotle says: in accordance with reason, things that people long for on the basis of persuasion; for their desire to see and possess many things after hearing about them and being persuaded. This leaves the audience open to being persuaded through less rational thinking and a more emotional basis. Which brings upon the main example: Hitler. He was able to murder millions of people through persuasion. He himself once declared, everything I have accomplished I owe to persuasion. An indispensable element of his rhetorical theory was lying. Hitler declared: Man is moved more by passion than by reason. Persuasion must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so called intellect. Is rhetoric really an honorable art to partake in, or is it just a manipulative, scheming practice to get people to do what you want, and control them? That is up to you to decide.