mary,
i apologize if i sounded like i was "straightening you out." just like
phaedrus shows his students that they already know quality, i make it a
point to show my students that they already know rhetoric. it's obvious
that you have a great command of it. you know how to use it and how to
recognize it; i've been trained to not only use it but to (over)analyze
it. when all you do is study and teach something, one tends to get a
bit obsessed . . . read on for evidence of this phenomenon. . .
i guess the point i was trying to make is that persuasion acts upon its
audience in those three ways collectively (thus, i would contend, there
is no such thing as a "logos argument," at least none that are effective
in achieving their purpose).
the key word you are using here is "manipulative." for some reason in
our society, we tend to discriminate against arguments that involve
emotion, regarding them as "manipulative," just because they DO involve
emotion (which usually accompanied by a fair amount of the logos and
ethos as well). yes, an argument can be steeped in "empty" emotional
language and images and still acheive its purpose-- i'd consider this
manipulation, which implies being "tricked." a classic case of using
pathos dishonestly. what's really being manipulated is our sense of
reason or rational intellect-- pathos stands in for logos. commercials
that show pictures of starving children and then ask for money are
perfect examples of this (we assume the money will benefit those
children; we invent the logos that the argument doesn't provide).
however, pathos can be used with little logos and not be manipulative at
all (this is what i'll call a "pathos argument"); it's just not
effective, meaning there's no persuasion (think of someone who tells you
a long, rambling story that's hard to follow with no point to it . . .
your reaction is "so what?" i think this "pathos argument" is analogous
to your "logos argument" as i state below in the fifth paragraph).
i consider logos manipulative when it is "empty" as well. the
stereotypical users of such manipulation are car salemen and
politicians. they "put together" arguments why you should buy car "x"
or vote for proposition "y." their logos (and their ethos for that
matter) is so convincing that we think, "yes, this is what i need
because it makes sense." here, logos stands in for pathos; we invent
the "realness" of the argument to us. again, i realize that you're
talking about a logically sound argument. again, my response to this is
below.
to separate ourselves from the stigma of manipulative emotions, perhaps
this is a better explanation for those "three ways":
logos-- appeals to the topic's presentation (logic, unity)
ethos-- appeals to the writer (credibility, authority)
pathos-- appeals to the audience (interest, sympathy)
an argument that is "purely" logical but has no appeal to the audience
will not be very persuasive (such as your "logos argument"). the reader
will not feel a connection to the argument unless an attempt is made to
cause the reader to care about the argument. Pathos can be achieved in
a variety of ways-- concrete/visual language (as opposed to words that
are vague/dull or equivocal); analogies, metaphors, or similes (visual
language through comparison); specific examples, anecdotes, or stories
(visual language through narration). pathos is what makes the argument
seem "real." ethos is what makes the argument seem "trustworthy" or
"believable." logos is what makes the argument make "sense." they're
all working at the same time in all forms of communication (no matter
how simple or inconsequetial it may seem).
i'm sure by now you and everyone else has stopped reading this pedantic
post. for those of you still with me, i offer a little gem that uses
zmm to further my point.
i came across this example today as i was working on my thesis. it may
help clarify how pathos plays a part in rhetoric. is zmm a novel? yes
(by pirsig's own admission). why, then, did he use the novel genre to
present and advance an argument that, in all honesty, could have been
presented as a traditional philosophical text-- a piece of non-fiction,
such as a treatise, an essay, a textbook (of sorts)? [these examples
could be regarded as logos-based formats because the presence of pathos
is minimal (which is why they're often boring as hell and nearly
impossible to decipher. how many textbooks have you read and felt this
way? that's the over-reliance of logos and the exclusion of pathos)]
by placing his philosophical inquiry in a fictional format, pirsig was
able to use plot, characterization, etc. to disguise the "heaviness" of
the content, blend it with characters who we care for through their
struggle with these philosophical issues and the action of the story.
aristotle grouped these elements of fiction into a "science" called
"poetics"; i call these elements "rhetoric for fiction." when you care
about what's happening to phaedrus, or chris, or sylvia, and understand
the philosophical issue pirsig is presenting within the context of the
story, you are being persuaded by pathos and logos (there's ethos there
too).
by changing the context in which this information is presented, pirsig
dramatizes it, makes you think about it differently. he didn't think
he'd get people to understand, let alone read his work, unless he could
make his audience care for it.
almost everything i've heard, read, or seen about pirsig talking about
his "next book after zmm" has him saying that "it will be more dull than
the first." he had every intention of writing lila without the
storyline. imagine reading it as a work of "non-fiction." would it be
as compelling as the text he actually wrote? that's why he decided to
reproduce the format and genre of zmm for lila.
i think pirsig argues in zmm (and maybe in lila, too) that rhetoric is
the mediator of Quality between people (just as plato thought it was
dialectic that informed us of the Truth). if this is so, any writing
would have to have some degree of an appeal to its audience in order for
the writing itself to be deemed as Quality (let alone the argument it is
advancing).
if you (or anyone else) still resist this argument, give me one more
chance to convince you otherwise. it won't be as long. promise
jamie
ps so much for a balanced post/response . . .
Mary wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> Thanks for straightening me out. Obviously you are a better English teacher
> than the one I had! I'm still not sure I agree that logos arguments are as
> manipulative as the other kinds, though. It seems to me that if an argument is
> logically consistent it appeals to the intellect rather than to the emotions.
> But, as Roger likes to say, I could be wrong.
>
> Best wishes,
> Mary
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:08 BST