This week in class we talked about Boothe’s views on Contemporary Rhetoric. This was of great interest to me as I had not read these texts in another class (unlike the Nietzche and Kant) and also had not really looked into rhetoric as a form of study. Thus, I delved deeper into this study I didn’t know much about, to see how it related to politics, and more importantly, how it related to my personal life.
The main topics I’m going to talk about in my reflection on Boothe’s rhetoric are:
- Defining rhetoric and understanding what it is.
- The 3 types of reality.
- How does rhetoric relate to whats going on in the U.S.
In class, we grappled with defining rhetoric but I don’t think we came to a hard enough conclusion. So after class, I decided I would attempt to define it myself and in doing so came up with my own definition: “All of the arts and tools used in understanding, misunderstanding, communicating and convincing.” I got this from a combination of Boothe’s contemporary definition, Oscar Wilde’s epigraph, and Aristotle’s classic definition.
After understanding what Rhetoric was, and setting up parameters for where it could be, I then went back to tackle Boothe’s concept of there being three reality’s.
- Reality 1: Permanent and unchangeable reality
- Reality 2: Realities changeable, but not created by rhetoric.
- Reality 3: Contingent realities about our lives.
I found this to be a really interesting point as my belief system starkly contradicts Reality 1. I didn’t really believe that things could be intrinsically evil or good, right or wrong. Upon rereading Boothe’s three reality’s, I realized that that’s not what he was saying exactly. Reality 1 is not the idea that things are intrinsically good or bad, but rather that certain things intrinsically exist regardless of how you perceive them. For example, it’s not that dropping ceramic is intrinsically bad or good, but rather that it drops because gravity intrinsically exists. This was a major flaw in my first reading, and upon rereading, I quickly realized where I went wrong. Reality 2 was quite easy for me to grasp as well as reality 3, and the examples of the mountain being smaller after a year as a form of reality 2 and Hitlers’ rhetoric as an example of reality 3 were both very understandable and sufficient for me.
This relates to what’s going on in the US as we see a president whose rhetoric may be toxic to society. As a leader, Trump possibly more so than other politicians implements Rhetrickery (dishonest forms of communicative arts). This is an issue as the power he has allows him to change reality through his use of rhetoric (direct application of reality 3) coming from thought that is already intentionally deceptive. This is an issue because such misinformation and dangerous rhetoric at a high level can start fueds with other leaders in society, possibly leading to worse off economic conditions as well as trade issues in the long run.
Hi Riley, I like your stipulation of a definition for Rhetoric, it’s clear and concise and certainly well thought out. It was interesting to hear about your first and second pass of the reading and your shift in perspective on Booth’s “Reality 1.” One thing I may say is that I wasn’t certain Booth was making the point that all things which have a moral judgment attached to them are good or bad intrinsically, merely that some of them did, using his example of slavery. This certainly seems really attractive as an ethical proposition as slavery is rather repulsive, but I was wondering what your perspective may be, since you mention not believing that anything is objectively good or evil.