RHETORIC   (350 BC)

            written by Aristotle -  part translated by W. Rhys Roberts -  part prepared and added by Miroslav H Mehmedbasic

Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come,
more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously; and every
one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art.

Now, the framers of the current treatises on rhetoric have constructed but a small portion of that art. The modes of persuasion are the only true constituents of the art: everything else is merely accessory. These writers, however, say nothing about enthymemes, which are the substances of rhetorical persuasion, but deal mainly with non-essentials. The arousing of prejudice, pity, anger, and similar emotions has nothing to do with the essential facts, but is merely a personal appeal to the man who is judging the case. Consequently if the rules for trials which are now laid down some states-especially in well-governed states-were applied everywhere, such people would have nothing to say. All men, no doubt, think that the laws should prescribe such rules, but some, as in the court of Areopagus, give practical
effect to their thoughts and forbid talk about non-essentials. This is sound law and custom. It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity-one might as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it. Again, a litigant has clearly nothing to do but to show that the alleged fact is so or is not so, that it has or has not happened. As to whether a thing is important or unimportant, just or unjust, the judge must surely refuse to take his instructions from the litigants: he must decide for himself all such points as the law-giver has not already defined for him.

Let we see who is through history create a borders and why?

Neglecting a system, hierarchy, current ideas some bureaucratic groups can govern giving a different promising about a better life conditions, better organized community, and better possibilities and so on, but in every case they should define the
borders of territory where they rule.

They in advance define the territory where privileged group can use natural resources and a human labor and where a group can implement own vision and programs necessary institutions for group governing monopole. According the moral and ethic of
group they can to advance or to retrograde local community rights, dignity, richness, and living conditions.
The ruling group will use every possibility to keep own governing positions creating a lobbies, interest groups, public or sometimes hidden campaign to prevent that ordinary folk can prevent their projects, in the same time they will speak about honesty, morality, democracy and their positive results- for negative results will be blamed opposition, different local and global movement, weather conditions and
so on. Inhabitants of some territory should believe to governing group but at first they should recognize do they have better possibilities; are their life conditions are better; does employment, health care and pension safety is better or they will mainly choose to vote for opposition. It is politically wise that society whatever racial, ethnically or religious consisted has more parties and the most important the freedom of public words. In new modern time of developed communication it means free and independent media. But governing
political party will always try to control and abuse a public media.

The goal- justify the way is an immoral sentence, but in praxis the governing party will try to put all media under their control and talk about media freedom, freedom of speech, gathering and expression…

What are really independent media with honesty to research and publish all what is socially negative? Public word should to find a way to be heard by majority of citizens.

There is no freedom without a freedom of public word. Who can give a judge about any information if he/she knows only one side of story?

Nobody is able to stop rhetoric, but citizens should be able through a public media to learn and recognize it! They must recognize what is campaign, false, negative access, and should be able to free express their ideas for and against any proposed public project…