My Response to others Definitions of Rhetoric

    In the sampling of others' definitions of rhetoric (a limited three I will admit) I found that theirs were focused on a specific aspect of what I considered as a greater whole in mine. This has not so much changed my definition of rhetoric as reinforced it. I will admit I found one definition that I disagreed on but it seemed to me that we differed slightly in what we thought we were defining and thus, through rhetorical thinking, I confirmed to myself that I personally considered rhetoric to be an “art” of communicating. Two others worded it differently calling it a “way” of communicating rather than an art but in essence I believe we were agreeing in what we were defining. Those who seemed to have a definition that was similar to a portion of my definition strengthened my stance with mine, rather like a ladder with a support lashed to each leg. That they did not define it as broadly/specifically as I did was not inclined to make me reduce my definition but rather to consider that when I wrote it I was doing a good job of thinking rhetorically and considering multiple facets of the art I considered, so as to create a definition that successfully encompassed the concept as a whole rather than limiting it. That said I do not by any means seek to belittle the definitions of others, merely to explain the thinking I have concerning my own definitions open umbrella affect, an open umbrella covers more area but a partially closed umbrella can give better shelter to things within.