"In the process, says Scott, certain ways of seeing the world are established as normal or natural, as obvious and necessary, even though they are often entirely counterintuitive and socially engineered." (Page 9)

This part reminded me a lot of the terministic screens mentioned in our readings of Burke. If our individual perceptions, our terministic screens, are inevitably counterintuitive and socially engineered, can they be changed? Is there any way to change these natural lenses and screens, or will they always end up being socially engineered because they are necessary? These are the questions that keep running in my head and it's interesting to think about.

Throughout this reading, it's clear that Neitzche is positing that truth is simply an act of human creation, not a fact. He argues that truth is almost an illusion. And I could sit here and debate these points, there is something interesting to think about. When we hypothesize, we often come up with our own truth before we prove or disprove a theory. So I can see the point that truth is creative. However, I think that it is near impossible to say that all truths are metaphors and simply created. Socrates would argue that there are some absolute truths that we cannot deny. Up is up, and down is down. But I think even that can be attributed to "perception" someone who is upside down would say that up is down and down is up. but to them, it is up and down. So in that sense, I can see where Neitzche is coming from. But without some absolute truths, there is no line to stop someone from saying that stealing is right.

See, I definitely agree with this point here. I think it only makes a point even more powerful If the person believes what they are saying and support it well. Then from there, you are inclined to think that the person has a good heart and is caring. I think nothing convinces an audience more than a speaker who has conviction. It’s one thing to get up and debate a topic and have great points, but if you aren’t passionate about the topic, your presentation will fall flat. I had a speech teacher once who I went to when I was having trouble coming up with topic ideas. She looked at me and said, “you have to pick a topic that you are actually interested in. If you are invested, you will be able to gain the interest of your audience.” I feel this piece of advice rings true in so many ways. It’s one thing to have rhetoric, but to utilize rhetoric into the things you are passionate about can really be a powerful thing.

I kind of feel like “useful” is not quite the right word. I’d almost venture to say that Rhetoric is almost necessary. Rhetoric is almost inescapable these days. Everyone is debating all the time and it’s become almost necessary for you to develop persuasion skills. Rhetoric but necessary is not quite the word I’m looking for either because it implies that Rhetoric is just simply a tool. I think Rhetoric is more than that. Without rhetoric, it is hard to convince people. Say for instance you are arguing that stealing is a crime. I think we can all agree that this is by far a true statement. Without Rhetoric though, it’s going to be hard to properly defend your points even if people can agree with you. But, if someone takes the opposite stance and used rhetoric to convince you that stealing isn’t actually wrong, that person might actually have better points. What I am trying to say is that even people who might argue for bad ideas would have a better convincing argument. Now just imagine how a debate would be if the person advocating for moral reasons used Rhetoric. Not only would they be convincing, but people would be more inclined to listen to them. Not just because of the Rhetoric itself but because the person actually believes in the ideas that they are putting forth. I always say that people are more inclined to believe a person’s stance on an argument if the speaker actually believes it themselves. It also shows your audience that you have credibility in what you are saying because you took the time to use rhetoric in order to support your statements. This is kind of why I think “useful” seems almost like a shallow term. I feel like crucial is a more accurate term. Because I know Aristotle would agree that the “most persuasive rhetorical appeal is ethos or character.” If you don’t have the character coupled with the rhetoric behind it, your stance is just not as convincing as it could be.