Foss' definition of rhetoric refers to "the human use of symbols to communicate" (Foss, 4). According to Foss, "this definition includes 3 primary dimensions (1) Humans as the creators of rhetoric. (2) symbols as the medium for rhetoric; and (3) communication as the purpose for rhetoric".(Foss, 4) To me, Foss' definition gives me the idea that rhetoric is simply a mean of communication but with a sense of persuasion added to it. After reading the article and looking over several definitions of rhetoric, I now have a good understanding of what it really means. It's the art of persuasion; one's way with speaking the language, writing the words and revealing the symbols. Rhetoric also depends for each specific person. A symbol can mean one thing to you, and the complete opposite to someone else. One person can see something completely different than another. This has to do with one's experience, views, and things such as optimism or pessimism. One example from my experience would be listening to some of the motivational speeches given by President Obama during last year's presidential election. Barack Obama has a way with words that seems so persuasive, you'd think you're crazy if you didn't agree with him. Compare him with McCain or Bush when he spoke to his crowd and you'd see the difference immediately. He is considered a pioneer when it comes to persuasion. Knowing exactly how to use a language in a way that catches someone's attention and gets them hooked is in itself an art.
Rhetoric:
Definition #1: The ability to use language effectively.
Definition #2: The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
Strong post. I like when you write, "Rhetoric also depends for each specific person. A symbol can mean one thing to you, and the complete opposite to someone else." You'd agree though that a lot of times we are similar enough to understand and interpret things similarly, right? Otherwise, how would Obama, McCain, or Bush get any votes?
ReplyDelete