Loving Reality

1.Author, Sonya Foss introduces her book, The Nature of Rhetorical Criticism with a general definition and explanation of rhetoric. Foss argues that our use of rhetoric aids in the creation of a common world. “Rhetoric is not simply a communicable form. It is the process by which our reality or our world comes into being; reality or knowledge of what is in the world is the result of communicating about it” (6). I agree with Foss’s understanding of how a more collective comprehension of the world could eventually exist, if all humans were talking about the same type of people, events, establishments etc. within a similar context and awareness. Yet, how does the process of reality through rhetoric change cross-culturally? In regards to the example of love, in a number of languages, including Spanish, French and German there are many different words to describe the various forms of love; plutonic love, love between lovers or family members, etc. Yet, in the English vernacular to describe love of any sort we have only one word to use “love.” With such culturally different ways to describe an emotion, can Foss’s “common world” ever really exist?

2.As emphasized in Persuasion and Influence in American Life, “The greatest potential for awareness and memorability of ideas, according to John Rossiter and Larry Percy, lies in the use of dynamic pictures (video), static concrete pictures (print)…Advertisers “brand their products by placing them in contexts where images link the product with symbols that carry a message…certain images trigger more or less reliable attitudes” (384-385). The use of visual images as a form of persuasion has escalated dramatically in the past two decades with the increased use of television, internet, and mobile phones. Significant amounts of money are made off television and internet advertisements every year. In relation to influencing advertisements, and the use of emotionally triggering advertisements what ethical guidelines exist? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYjbWHbbjjg&feature=related What are the moral codes around using young children, or impoverished families, or beautiful women to sell a product or idea?

3. Although, I was intrigued Herbert Wilchens contributions to neo-Aristotelianism , I felt that his overall analysis of rhetorical criticism seemed rather deficient. In regards to the listed topics identified by Wilchens, there was no explanation as to how the elements should be utilized. As a critic, how would you deal with the essential topics identified by Wilchens? Once characteristics of the topics are identified what do they signify? Are the original elements Wilchens identified still prevalent to the study of speech today? Are there any other topics that should be added, now in the 21st century?