In Response to “How Many ‘Rhetorics’?”

booth-how-many-rhetorics  (Marked-up PDF)

From the Booth reading I gathered some information about rhetoric, and the mixed emotions attached to it. Its meaning and true definition has been passed around with that of very distinct explanations, and with simplistic views of it being nothing more than an essential piece of all human communication. Either way, I’ve been exposed to a wide array of thoughts and views as to how rhetoric has played a role in society, and how without it, much of what makes us human would be lost. I am interested by rhetoric and the stigma it seems to garner as being a sort of negative and deceiving form of communication, a tool for “rhetrickery”. I like how it was described that rhetoric does not make or create our reality or the truths, yet helps to find those truths by molding our values and morals. Reality Three is interesting in that certain situations turned out how they did based on rhetoric of one or more figures, but would most likely be much different if those figures were swapped out with different peoples, then their rhetoric would pave a different path, or at least that’s how I interpreted it.

If I was to provide another example for Reality 3, I might use a situation where I’m attempting to persuade and senior in high school to apply at Miami. If my attempt was put up against another student, we would use different arguments of persuasion because individually we have experienced ¬†different things even though we are both currently attending Miami. My rhetoric could either positively or negatively ¬†influence the high school student, but either outcome would differ from the persuasion provided by another Miami student because our experiences are not the same. I’m not sure how accurate this is to Booth’s idea of Reality Three, but it seems to make sense to me.