Skip to main content
Presented to you through Paradigm Publishing Services

Bristol University Press

Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

1 What’s Wrong with Aristotle?

  • , and

Abstract

This chapter examines how traditional legal rhetoric rests on a classical rhetoric foundation that normalizes inequality in various forms. The chapter starts with Aristotle and looks at his contributions to rhetoric—an essence-based approach to categories, the syllogistic form, and conceptions of hierarchy and inequality. The chapter then traces how traditional legal rhetoric has inherited these classical rhetorical thought structures. Then, by analyzing a few key judicial opinions, the chapter shows how traditional legal reasoning silences outsiders, limits the story that can be told, and produces unjust outcomes.

Abstract

This chapter examines how traditional legal rhetoric rests on a classical rhetoric foundation that normalizes inequality in various forms. The chapter starts with Aristotle and looks at his contributions to rhetoric—an essence-based approach to categories, the syllogistic form, and conceptions of hierarchy and inequality. The chapter then traces how traditional legal rhetoric has inherited these classical rhetorical thought structures. Then, by analyzing a few key judicial opinions, the chapter shows how traditional legal reasoning silences outsiders, limits the story that can be told, and produces unjust outcomes.

Downloaded on 7.5.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.56687/9781529226034-005/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button