- Stay Connected
Logos vs Pathos
 Patriot Baron
Logos The word Logos literally means “word”, “reason”, or “account”. However, Logos as a rhetorical device is an appeal to the logic and reason of an audience in an argument. This is opposed to Pathos, an appeal to emotion. Yet, Logos is far more important than Pathos. In fact, my opponent will have to use Logos in order to construct her argument. The logic we derive from Logos is at the very center of our thinking. Without logic, there would be no science, no sport, and no survival. Pathos and emotion contribute much to an appeal, but they often obscure elements of the truth. A picture of a child crying can move anyone to sadness, but the baby could be crying for a lost mother, or just throwing a tantrum. Pathos can mislead anyone in this way. Logos however, is the presentation of the facts, the truth. With just Logos, one can make a balanced, rational decision concerning anything. Pathos only serves to enhance the logical argument behind it. Logos is the TV, the Cable, and the core channels. Pathos is the HD channels, fun, but not as essential. Finally, an appeal to emotion is often the catalyst for catastrophic events. The genocide of the Jews in Germany was not based on logic. Hate, Fear, Despair, these are all elements of Pathos, and while these emotions are important, they often are the reason irrational and horrible events. On the other hand, if one considers Logos one can never be illogical or irrational. In today’s society, we hope that our leaders consider logic before emotion. While both are important, Logos is triumphant because it is key to logically thinking, it’s key understanding a situation, and it’s key to reacting to that situation accordingly. |
vs. |
 Hoodie Baron
Pathos The strongest arguments incorporate pathos and logos, weaving them together to form a cohesive argument. At the end of such an argument, the audience has connected to the speaker not only logically but also emotionally… but which portion is more effective? Logos or pathos? The mind or the heart? There is no stronger form of rhetoric than an appeal to emotion. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s I Have A Dream speech is an excellent example. Dr. King has a powerful dream for the future and a vision of how to transform the United States. The power of his speech does not stem merely from what he says, but from the way he allows the audience to share his emotions. The audience suffers the injustice of segregation, celebrates the Emancipation Proclamation, and dreams of a brighter future for America. It is Martin Luther King’s expert use of pathos that brings the audience to their feet at the end of his speech, cheering, screaming, and crying as he exclaims, “Free at last! Free at last! Praise God Almighty, we’re free at last!” The mind and the heart often come into conflict. In Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, the two protagonists fall in love despite knowledge that their love is forbidden. Romeo and Juliet’s families are bitter foes, but the two cannot help loving one another. The odds are against them, yet they do not give up hope that they may one day be together. Although sometimes the logic tells our minds that we cannot succeed, our hearts urge us to believe. Although logos may strengthen an argument, it is pathos that truly connects the audience with the speaker’s message. An appeal to emotion will always prove stronger than an appeal to logic because it is our hearts that allow us to dream. |
Amalia Halikias
April 18, 2010 at 12:16 pm
the government could increase spending, or increase the amount of money in circulation. The Fed could lower the interest rates in banks, or lower the reserve ratios in banks, or lower discount rates. Doron, there are many different ways to solve the same problem, and all of them can be backed with logic. Just because different people disagree as to which one of these options should be used does not mean that any of them are wrong. There are simply different conclusions drawn from logical assumptions.
It seems to me that all of your examples are extremely black-and-white, and it sounds like you are thinking of logic as an algebraic mathematical equation with only one solution that will work. In reality, there are many logical conclusions (especially in higher level mathematics and science). Simply because two sides disagree does not mean that one of them is not backed by logic. As was stated above, Hitler justified the extermination of many minorities with “logic” by building off of false premises.
dimitri halikias
April 15, 2010 at 11:56 pm
true statements in science contradict each other ALL THE TIME. take for example general relativity vs. quantum mechanics. Both of these are clearly accurate, are backed up by not only scientific evidence but mathematical proofs, and both directly contradict each other. That does not mean that “one of them is wrong” it simply means that the true nature of the universe has not been found yet. Not everything is black and white Doron, some things actually require an iota of rational thought.
Doron Tauber
April 16, 2010 at 6:01 am
the law does not apply to atomic research -.- it applies to a rational argument/debate, in which there is a right side and a wrong side. don’t try to disprove my statement on epistemology with your physics. they’re not the same.
dimitri halikias
April 16, 2010 at 6:45 am
So there are black and white answers in politics, but there aren’t in science? And also a discussion of cheap, shallow pseudo-economic principles hardly counts as “epistemology”
Doron Tauber
April 16, 2010 at 3:35 pm
yes. because in quantum theory, normal laws that apply to large objects really don’t apply.
Amalia Halikias
April 16, 2010 at 5:14 pm
…what?
Justin
April 16, 2010 at 8:14 pm
maybe you should try to make sense when you type.
Jackson Fritz
April 14, 2010 at 8:42 pm
logic isn’t necessarily true. logic is reason, whether it be true or not. it may be reasonable that by cutting taxes for the rich, the economy will benefit, but that isn’t always true. if lies and propaganda make sense, then they are logical. (plus, the mass public only knew about persecution, not the extermination) Also, who really knows why Hitler did what he did? It seems like he could have been trying to prove to himself, but I don’t believe anyone will really be able to explain Hitler’s rationale.
Doron Tauber
April 14, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Hitler was mentally unstable.
If something is not objectively true, then it is not logical or reasonable. Reason is truth. One cannot reason that the sky is purple, because for logic and reason you need demonstrative evidence, not just abstract theories.
It is 100% true all the time that if taxes are cut for the rich, then the economy will benefit overall. That is an objective fact. It is not an objective fact to say “Jews are stealing our jobs” because there is no evidence to back it up.
dimitri halikias
April 14, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Doron, that is completely wrong. The entire purpose of logical reasoning is that you do not need demonstrative evidence. That is the entire difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. You DO NOT need evidence to prove a syllogism, you need logic. Also, Jackson is right in that logic is not always correct. Karl Marx’s logic that capitalism creates classes and lower classes suffer worse than do the upper classes is completely accurate. Marx takes it further by saying that a truly free society would be one in which there are no classes and there is no governmental control, instead the people have all the power. That is a logical conclusion, and yet most people now agree that it is fundamentally flawed in practice and execution.
Doron Tauber
April 14, 2010 at 10:48 pm
in a logical argument, there are two sides. one that is true, and one that is false. no two solutions can be true by logic, that would create a contradiction, and contradictions cannot occur. just because you can sway someone with faulty logic doesn’t make it logical or reasonable. just as God cannot be argued by any logic or reason because there is a complete lack of evidence. logic is not based on abstractions, but on fundamental and objective truths.
dimitri halikias
April 14, 2010 at 8:35 pm
That’s not true, there certainly is “true” logic in genocides. It is logic based on false premises, but logic nonetheless.
dimitri halikias
April 14, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Actually Patriot Baron, Hitler used very clear-cut reasoning to justify his “Final Solution.” In Hitler’s eyes, there was no other logical alternative other than to exterminate the Jews. He saw the genocide as necessary for national unity and economic development. Pure logos void of humanity has been used time and time again to justify the massacres of “inferior” peoples.
Doron Tauber
April 14, 2010 at 7:07 pm
but it was false logic. pure true logic is based upon reason. it is not reasonable to say that anyone posing no physical threat to you should be exterminated. lies and propaganda do not count as “logic”.
Justin
April 15, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I’m going to have to agree with Doron here (good god what has this world come to), at least pertaining to the fact that it’s only sound logic (logos) when you have sound premesis.
While one can derive a logical conclusion from any premise, flawed premises lead to the result actually being illogical when applied (read: when used it is not logic). As such, logos should only be taken to mean sound logic based on sound premises (for sound applied decision making).
However, Doron, it’s completely possible for one problem to have more than one correct solution.
Doron Tauber
April 15, 2010 at 10:54 pm
not if the two cause a contradiction. “contradictions do not occur. check your premises, you will find that one of them is wrong”
dimitri halikias
April 15, 2010 at 11:53 pm
wow doron, you really have know idea what the hell you are talking about do you.
Doron Tauber
April 16, 2010 at 6:04 am
two contradicting solutions can never solve the same problem. if there is a downturn in the economy, what will help it speed back up is lowering taxes. you can’t say that raising taxes in a slow economy will help it speed up, because it is irrational. there is only the one option of lowering taxes. one side was wrong and one side was right.
Jackson Fritz
April 18, 2010 at 9:33 am
or increasing government spending to add money in to the economy
Justin
April 20, 2010 at 6:29 pm
There can be 2 perfectly rational solutions to one problem. This principle is demonstrated in people’s actions and interactions on a daily basis. While something like a math equation (which could actually have more than one solution) generally seems to have definite right and wrong answers, in dealing with people (and on a larger scale communities and nations) many problems have multiple valid solutions. Just because there’s more than one way to think does not mean your premises are contradictory.
Oh, also I like how you say you don’t sound like Ayn Rand and then quote Atlas Shrugged. Nice touch.
Doron Tauber
April 20, 2010 at 6:34 pm
when did I say that I didn’t sound like Ayn Rand?
Jackson: where does that money come from, that you are apparently so willing to spend? It comes from the taxpayer, and to spend more money, you need higher taxes, and as we all know (apparently except for Obama) raising taxes in a down economy is a bad thing. unless of course you suggest that we just print more money, in which case we would run into the issue of inflation.
Justin: In a math problem, there is only one correct answer. there may be multiple ways to get to the same answer, but the answer remains the same no matter what. just because you change the form, doesn’t change the solution.
dimitri halikias
April 20, 2010 at 7:39 pm
can you please back up your rhetoric with some evidence? where exactly did obama raise taxes? and also, the difference with america printing money and the rest of the world is that the entire world wants to buy up american bills. That is why we can safely print billions more without creating heavy inflation. As the dollar still is the universal currency, demand will never drop (at least not for a few decades). And also, obviously in a math problem there is one correct answer, but you aren’t talking about the answer. you are talking about the path. Everyone wants strong economic growth and low unemployment. The difference is that there are many different steps the government can take to reach these goals. To stay with your math analogy, there are many different ways you can manipulate an equation to arrive at the same answer.
Doron Tauber
April 20, 2010 at 8:29 pm
you know Moody’s says that we’re dangerously close to losing our AAA credit rating, and countries like Russia, China, and many in Europe are planning on dropping the dollar entirely. Our level of debt is unsustainable and we will eventually crumble as a nation. Something needs to be there to fill the void, and we need to decide what is going to fill that void, freedom or slavery.
Justin
April 20, 2010 at 9:09 pm
The first sentence there is the only one remotely resembling truth. Our credit rating is in jeopardy. However, there is no real evidence that the dollar will suddenly cease being the international medium of exchange as well as the fact that our debt level is unsustainable. We do have a significant national debt. To say that our nation is crumbling because of that is bordering on fear mongering.
dimitri halikias
April 20, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Yes, I am aware of the Moody’s report, but I am also aware that China has over doubled its investment in the American dollar. Seeing as the RMB is by definition tied to the strength of the dollar, there is no way China would undermine the strength of the American currency. It is also true that some nations are looking at the IMF SDR as a potential new global base, but even the most enthusiastic observers admit that is at least 20 years away