In Response

Just some thoughts in response:

Dana makes some logical assertions to the Leff and Scott readings. The bounds of rhetoric have stretched far beyond that of the political arena—so much to the point that it seems there has grown a larger focus on it. I remember it was always one of those vocabulary words mentioned in high school classes with very little explanation. One of those "terms"—it was always just a term, something always inactive—understood in the sense that it was not completely understood. I’ve come to realize that rhetoric does not just provide students with a logical way to approach or develop an argument, but it opens worlds of opportunity for individuals to develop competent writing and communication skills from analytical or critical evaluations. An understanding of language is treasured, and those who have mastered it have built a strong foundation upon which intellectual advancement and accomplishment can be laid. Rhetoric often serves as a primary means for this application: A way to define in order to convince.

Dana says, "I do not believe that rhetoric is a way of knowing truth as meaning rhetoric is a way of discovering and creating truth for oneself. I believe that rhetoric is a way of expressing and defining objective truth which is already established." I agree. Rhetoric does not create for us what already exists (or what does not exist); it serves to simply define or clarify it. Like Dana, I think rhetoric can help advance or sustain "positions made powerful through the proof and standard established in truth as the basis and force of the argument." Without language, without words, rhetoric does not exist. Truth, however, exists regardless of a means to put it to terms. Rhetoric can be defined, but truth must always be beheld.

Melody