Pathos: The Emotional Appeal
Pathos is Greek for “suffering” or “experience” and is the emotional appeal that elicits an emotional response from an audience. A rhetorician can appeal to an audience's sympathies and imagination to cause them to not only identify with the rhetorician’s point of view but also with his or her emotions (Rapp, 2010). Emotion makes an argument more powerful and helps push readers toward persuasion because the success of an argument is often determined by an audience's emotional state when it is time for the final judgment (“A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals”; Rapp, 2010). For example, judgment is not the same when one is friendly versus when one is hostile. If a reader is friendly towards the rhetorician, then they will see fewer faults in the argument, will be more likely to agree with the rhetorician, and will, in turn, take in and better soak up the argument (Rapp, 2010; Dow, 2007, p. 385).
To Aristotle, in order to invoke a certain emotion in an audience, the rhetorician must first understand the definition, characteristics, and circumstances of the emotion. With this understanding, a rhetorician can then highlight such characteristics in his or her argument to give their stance an advantage (Rapp, 2010). This can be done through a narrative or story with vivid, emotional language and sensory details to highlight values, beliefs, and understandings of the rhetorician. Despite its seemingly simplicity, pathos is not as simple as telling a reader that they should be crying at a certain point. Rather, it is creating a scene that arouses crying at such a point. In order to successfully create pathos, a rhetorician must know about psychology, upon which Aristotle advises to create anger toward an idea and to create a sense of calm to make the audience feel friendly pleasure or hostile anger (“A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals”).
Emotion can be invoked in an audience either through deduction or induction (Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 280). In showing the contradictory yet complimentary emotions of friendship and enmity, Aristotle used deduction:
It is possible [for a speaker] both to demonstrate that people are enemies and friends and to make them so when they are not and to refuse those claiming to be and to bring those who through anger or enmity are on the other side of the case to whatever feeling he chooses (as cited in Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 281).
Likewise, Aristotle used induction to illicit fear:
Whenever it is better [for a speaker's case] that they [i.e., the audience] experience fear, he should make them realize that they are liable to suffering; for [he can say that others even greater than they] have suffered, and he should show that there are others like them suffering [now] (or who have suffered) and at the hands of those from whom they did not elect it and suffering things [they did not expect] and at a time when they were not thinking of [the possibility] (as cited in Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 281).
With such conclusions of inferential processes on emotional states in argument, all are propositions because they increase the likely success of the argument. In this instance, specifically in deduction, anger is invoked because, as Aristotle stated, readers do not like when others challenge or go against them. With such challenges, they become angry (Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 281). Inferences to beliefs are crucial in emotional states. Therefore, beliefs are part of emotions and must be challenged in order to invoke such emotion in a reader - the cause of the anger, such as feeling insulted, is what makes emotion so powerful in argument (Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 282).
Despite his incorporation of ethos in argument, Aristotle cautioned against manipulating the audiences’ emotions to the point where it makes them "mindless of concepts and consequences" because such manipulations can corrupt and poison their judgment (“A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals”). Because of this, Aristotle opposed slandering and stirring up hostility in situations low and unethical such as how one dressed (Dow, 2007, p. 386). When a rhetorician slanders and aggressively places blame on someone, he or she circles in on the audience’s state of mind before readers accept the rhetorician’s claims, which manipulates or prejudices the audience (Dow, 2007, p. 388). Aristotle rejected such unethical slander that manipulates or prejudices an audience because it does nothing to contribute to proofs and is thus irrelevant to an argument. Nonetheless, Aristotle accepted and welcomed emotions so long as they genuinely contribute to the argument and lead an audience to persuasion by ethical means (Dow, 2007, p. 387, 400, 388).
While ethos and pathos both instill beliefs in audiences, neither is sufficient on their own to prove such views because they are independent forms of proof (Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 282). Thus, Aristotle believed that rhetorical arguments should be structured in a way that follows logic and then is molded by ethos and pathos, depending on the specific case (Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 275).
To Aristotle, in order to invoke a certain emotion in an audience, the rhetorician must first understand the definition, characteristics, and circumstances of the emotion. With this understanding, a rhetorician can then highlight such characteristics in his or her argument to give their stance an advantage (Rapp, 2010). This can be done through a narrative or story with vivid, emotional language and sensory details to highlight values, beliefs, and understandings of the rhetorician. Despite its seemingly simplicity, pathos is not as simple as telling a reader that they should be crying at a certain point. Rather, it is creating a scene that arouses crying at such a point. In order to successfully create pathos, a rhetorician must know about psychology, upon which Aristotle advises to create anger toward an idea and to create a sense of calm to make the audience feel friendly pleasure or hostile anger (“A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals”).
Emotion can be invoked in an audience either through deduction or induction (Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 280). In showing the contradictory yet complimentary emotions of friendship and enmity, Aristotle used deduction:
It is possible [for a speaker] both to demonstrate that people are enemies and friends and to make them so when they are not and to refuse those claiming to be and to bring those who through anger or enmity are on the other side of the case to whatever feeling he chooses (as cited in Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 281).
Likewise, Aristotle used induction to illicit fear:
Whenever it is better [for a speaker's case] that they [i.e., the audience] experience fear, he should make them realize that they are liable to suffering; for [he can say that others even greater than they] have suffered, and he should show that there are others like them suffering [now] (or who have suffered) and at the hands of those from whom they did not elect it and suffering things [they did not expect] and at a time when they were not thinking of [the possibility] (as cited in Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 281).
With such conclusions of inferential processes on emotional states in argument, all are propositions because they increase the likely success of the argument. In this instance, specifically in deduction, anger is invoked because, as Aristotle stated, readers do not like when others challenge or go against them. With such challenges, they become angry (Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 281). Inferences to beliefs are crucial in emotional states. Therefore, beliefs are part of emotions and must be challenged in order to invoke such emotion in a reader - the cause of the anger, such as feeling insulted, is what makes emotion so powerful in argument (Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 282).
Despite his incorporation of ethos in argument, Aristotle cautioned against manipulating the audiences’ emotions to the point where it makes them "mindless of concepts and consequences" because such manipulations can corrupt and poison their judgment (“A General Summary of Aristotle's Appeals”). Because of this, Aristotle opposed slandering and stirring up hostility in situations low and unethical such as how one dressed (Dow, 2007, p. 386). When a rhetorician slanders and aggressively places blame on someone, he or she circles in on the audience’s state of mind before readers accept the rhetorician’s claims, which manipulates or prejudices the audience (Dow, 2007, p. 388). Aristotle rejected such unethical slander that manipulates or prejudices an audience because it does nothing to contribute to proofs and is thus irrelevant to an argument. Nonetheless, Aristotle accepted and welcomed emotions so long as they genuinely contribute to the argument and lead an audience to persuasion by ethical means (Dow, 2007, p. 387, 400, 388).
While ethos and pathos both instill beliefs in audiences, neither is sufficient on their own to prove such views because they are independent forms of proof (Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 282). Thus, Aristotle believed that rhetorical arguments should be structured in a way that follows logic and then is molded by ethos and pathos, depending on the specific case (Gross & Dascal, 2001, p. 275).