Aristotle's Kinds of Rhetoric

Plato and Aristotle are some of the most fascinating individuals in history. When we look at the time in which they lived, what they had, and what they produced–it continues to boggle my mind. Even on the subject of rhetoric, no effort was wasted. When they chose to study a topic, they would search and find the most important details–all because of their search for absolute truth. 

Aristotle's approach to rhetoric seems, to me, a bit more of a straightforward approach as opposed to Plato's. Though they are both effective, it is interesting to compare the way their views are presented. On one hand, you have Plato, who chooses to tell a story through dialogue in order to persuade his audience. His writing portrays itself more like a speech, allowing him to have a conversation with his audience through the character, Phaedrus. Aristotle, on the other hand, simply writes out his rhetorical views, similar to a modern-day text. As I am one of the points within Aristotle's rhetorical triangle, the reader, I feel this approach to be more effective and clear. His purpose was stated clearly and his approach to the topic was straightforward. 

Within Rhetoric, Book 1, Aristotle discussed rhetoric and placed it within "three divisions ... : (I) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display (1.3.1, p. 185)." To view his discussion of the kinds of rhetoric in a straightforward manner, see figure 1. He further describes these divisions:

Figure 1 – Retrieved From: Wake Forest University

Political speaking urges us either to do or not to do something: one of these two courses is always taken by private counselors, as well as by men who address public assemblies. Forensic speaking either attacks or defends somebody: one or other of these two things must always be done by the parties in a case. The ceremonial oratory of display either praises or censures somebody (1.3.2, p. 185).  

In further description he separates each division by subject matter, time, and end–each separation represents the difference between the kinds of rhetoric. For example, a political speech (deliberative) is a form of exhortation or dissuasion regarding an expedient or harmful future.

I find this distinction interesting and that it is a solid foundation on which to build the definition of rhetoric. Since it has been over 2000 years since this definition was penned, I feel there is much more to be added to this fantastic description. Similar to Plato, Aristotle seems to view rhetoric as being involved in mostly speeches, though Aristotle was not known to have written any speeches himself (p. 31). In our technological age, is there not other types of rhetoric to be added to this list? Is there more than just deliberative, forensic, and epideictic forms of rhetoric? A meme, for example, could take on each of these kinds of rhetoric, but could it take-on more? I for one feel that it is a thought worth having, but I definitely do not have the answers.