Discuss your favorite song and the significance of its lyrics to you. We'll then recreate the song, line by line, on this board.

I am supposed to be the discussion leader for today but there is no topic to discuss...

Are we not talking about Booth again?

I think that Booth is a foundationalist for two reasons. One reason would be that he does mention that certain realities with always be true, such as slavery being wrong. The other reason would be that when he does talk about the contingent realities, there seems to be one underlying truth in each one of them. Although each reality he mentions he says is subject to further change, in each one he says that "rhetoric made or created" that reality, which would be the underlying truth. I could also maybe see us placing him in a totally differnet category, I just couldn't personally figure out what that would be.

I think that he believes in facts as this outside, independent reality, but he awknowledges that rhetoric can shape the way that reality is interpreted and the beliefs that result.

That's kind of where I'm at, although I'm more skeptical about most facts. No, Jane, I don't believe the computer is an alien, but I do believe that most "facts" are manipulated to make a point. At the very least, we can concede that facts don't exist in a vacuum once they enter a social, communal realm.In this way, rhetoric is most important in the effect it can have on ideology.

I'm still not sold on either one, but i'd have to lean towards antifoundationalist. everyone to some extent has to believe in SOME truth, and thats what i think booth is doing. The fact that he shows that he believes in a Bit of truth makes him seem like a foundationalist but his beliefs are more in unison iwth that of an antifoundationalist.

Booth seems to grant the existence of these "hard, unchangeable facts" by "joining with most Platonists and many theologians" in asserting that "many truths...preexist before any discovery or 'making' of them" -- and calls those who dispute this relativists and social constructionists. But social constructionists deal with the formation of values, not hard truths. My problem with Booth is that he appears to imply that LR, or other careful open-minded deliberation, will cause both discussants to arrive at some agreement on Reality One-level truths. But both Booth and Lakoff make the point that language impacts our mental deliberation and communication processes -- we cannot think independent of words, or "frames" if you like. Thus it is necessary that even what we think are Reality One truths must be expressed in words, tying in more general beliefs (whether their nature be scientific, social, or religious). For instance, is it a "fact" that an erupting volcano is obviously caused by subterranean pressures and accompanied by lava flows (something like that, I'm not big on attending my science classes)? Was it not, perhaps, equally a fact millenia ago that the same event was obviously Zeus getting pissed off at Athena and throwing a thunderbolt, or whatever religious beliefs might have played a role in different times in explaining natural phenomena? We accept much supposedly immutable truth whole-heartedly because we trust in our society and our education (or the educations of others who attended their science classes); somewhere in all this, however, doesn't the validity of harnessing any sort of "Reality One" truth in an argument dissapate? This, and LR, accept like Socratic elenchus does that building common ground (whether through definitions or "listening to each other") is the way to untangle foundational truth from rhetoric and opinion. I'm not so sure that's possible.

I'm not so convinced that Booth is as foundationalist as y'all are saying.
I agree that Reality number 1 and 2 are foundationalist. Reality 1 talks of unchangeable, non-contingent truth (Socrates anyone?) and Reality 2 talks of realities being changed by nature, but these changes are based on realities in reality 1 (i.e. volcano blast creates force, which can rip off the top of the mountain. As lava flows, it will harden and increase the height of the valley).

But Reality 3......oh reality 3. Booth views humans as somewhat outside of nature, since our realities are not placed in the #2 slot. Because we have the capability for rational thought and can affect how we feel about certain events, our realities are not as big T truth as the other 2. His reality #3 reminded me of that paragraph I had to write all the time in detention in middle school: what happens to you is 10% of the importance and how you react to what happened to you/how you perceive those actions constitute 90% of the importance of that event. I definitely don't want to call Booth an anti-foundationalist, but his description of how we view our 'reality' doesn't let me call him a foundationalist. Based on what was stated earlier, Hook might have been the same height both times (a reality 1 topic, no?), but Peter's reality of his height changed. We could argue that Booth is foundationalist because his height is the same no matter what, but I don't think that is what Booth is getting at. If he believed that, then reality #3 would just be a 'perceived reality' based on reality #1 and 2 and wouldn't get its own spot on the reality countdown. Booth is undermining the reality #1 by saying that our perceptions of what happens also constitute a reality, thus undermining foundationalist beliefs.

My apologies for being a little late tonight. It's crunch time and I'm swamped... as I'm sure we all are.

I think I would definitely align Booth with a more foundationalist view (although, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of “new” category). He has three categories for “realities,” and the first one he describes is the non-contingent truth, a definite foundationalist view. He reserves this category for dealings more in ethics and morality-dealings in good/ bad. He gives the example of slavery, “Slavery will always be wrong, no matter how many cultures practice it” (p13). The contradiction arrives with his next two categories for realities. The second being changeable realities, but not changeable by rhetoric- from what I gathered, this category was more about facts and not ethics. For this one he gives the example of a mountain’s height that is a known fact, but then is changed by a volcanic blast. This is a changing truth, but not changed by rhetoric. The third category he talks about are Contingent Realities about Our Lives, and then a list of realities that were/are created by persuasion. It’s this last category that throws off the foundationalist view of a TRUTH. This suggests that Booth believes there are realities that can be shaped by human influence.

This thought reminds me a little of Lakoff’s frames. People can use rhetoric to influence an outcome that then becomes truth/ or reality. Not to say that this means pandering, but it does place human influence and rhetoric in the equation. Booth’s ideas of reality and their relationship to rhetoric are interesting. I wouldn’t call them purely Platonic, because from what we explored in class, Plato uses rhetoric to find an unwavering Truth. Here Booth explains a variety of truth that is actually influenced by the rhetoric that may have found it.

So in conclusion, I wouldn’t call him an anti-foundationalist, nor would I say he’s wholly foundationalist … so what’s our new title?
amy_lee

At first it seems Booth is being really antifoundationalist--note the liberal use of quotation marks around "facts" and "world" on "page" "twelve." His main point in this section: "rhetoric makes a vast part of our realities."

Nonetheless I think Booth is, in a way, less radical about his rhetorical realities than Lakoff is about his frames. Lakoff told us that our realities were inextricably linked and shaped by rhetoric ("frames"). I think Booth is saying they're...extricably so. There is a reality apart from rhetoric, once all is said and done (Boorh might prefer "said, therefore done"). It's just that rhetoric is the cause of that reality. Look at his example three (14-15), where rhetoric influences an outcome that Booth chooses to call a reality. (We'll grant Booth that his realities one and two are hopelessly foundationalist.) Even in his most rhetorical realities, he is still not denying that (1) there is truth (reality), (2) we can know and recognize that reality, and that the reality is influenced by rhetoric, and (3) we can communicate that reality and talk about how it is shaped.

I like to return to the antifoundationalist golden rules when in doubt. I guess the other thing Booth has going for him as a foundationalist is that he adheres to some pretty strict ethics and definitions concerning rhetoric. He has a precise aim for the art--"producing and reducing misunderstanding" which is awfully close to Socrates' method of finding common definitions and reducing misunderstanding until we are left with truth. So when Booth says that rhetoric shapes reality, I don't think he's in any way doubting that there is still an outside reality, or a truth. In fact, he thinks rhetoric is a tool for finding it.

after re-reading the selected text i really think we should categorize booth as a foundationalist. a foundationalist holds that there are unchangeable truths upon which all others are built. if i am a foundationalist this does not mean that my finite and limited interpretation of this "Truth" will not change. I think that when booth uses the example of the tornado destroying the village he exemplifies this. the Truth of the matter is the tornado destroyed the village -- our understanding of what is a tornado is changable but the Truth is undeniable. I think his last section on 'created realities' can be boiled down to perception. i am reminded of a line from the movie "Hook" with Robbin Williams -- Peter Pan tells Hook that he remembers him being much larger. Hook replies "to a ten year old I'm huge!" there was a Truth to Hook's size, but Peter's perception of it had changed as he grew older outside of never never land. the changing of the understanding of Hook's size does not negate the absoluteness of it. Capitol T-Truth does not change but our understanding of it can.