Foss defines rhetoric as "the human use of symbols to communicate" (Foss, Foss and Trapp 1). As I read this definition I realized I began to scan over the next few paragraphs thinking about how this definition was relating to the rest of the article and, more specifically, how I too use symbols to communicate numerous times throughout the day. I feel that the authors are trying to explain with their definition how humans use so many common words that only have meaning to society because someone, somewhere down the historic timeline decided to give a certain object its name for eternity. I know that on many occurrences I too have taken a moment to ponder why certain things are given a certain name. If red had been given the name green and vice versa, then we would know describe things such as blood green or as red as the grass. When one really starts to analyze human symbols and their use in society it can become never-ending and confusing. As stated in the reading, during the period of rationalism poetry and oratory were thought of as ridiculous to be a basis for truth in comparison to science, yet this is where our basis for description and reason came from and without rhetoric science would have no backbone (Foss, Foss and Trapp 10). As I conclude my rambling on this topic I know that because of this idea that has resurfaced in my brain, I will lose sleep pondering many more unattainable answers to my many life's questions.

Andrea Lunsford: "Rhetoric is the art, practice, and study of human communication."
Plato: [Rhetoric] is the "art of enchanting the soul." (The art of winning the soul by discourse.)
BOTH FROM:
(Eidenmuller, Michael E.. "Scholarly Definitions of Rhetoric." American Rhetoric. 2007. American Rhetoric. 22 Aug 2007 http://www.americanrhetoric.com/rhetoricdefinitions.htm.)