pathos

The idea of "pathos"

well.

As I have not been able to pry out of my brain since some distant etymology class, "path" means feeling.

Pathos therefore, in a form of rhetoric, would mean to appeal to a person's feelings or emotions. i.e., using the "guilt trip" method. However horrible that sounds, it is, in fact, a very effective form of argument. Okay, to appeal to pathos doesn't nessecarily mean sending the reader on a guilt trip. It could be the opposite- appealing to someone on a personal level, using human examples in order to stir a person's anger or agreement. However it's used, it is essential. It's sort of like saying "millions of people were killed in the holocaust", as opposed to telling the story of a few individuals and what they had to endure. In forms of sheer numbers, of course the killing of millions of people seems worse- but it is, alas, sheer numbers. There is no personal level, and without a personal level, there is no argument. People are going to much more touched by the story of a life, because they have their own life themselves, and all humans have something that they can connect with another, even if it is down to the level of simply sharing the same set of emotions and feelings.

The case for torture article makes a (in my opinion) rather futile attempt to appeal to pathos. He does try to send his readers on a guilt trip and make them look twice at themselves, but he sort of ends up looking bitter in the process. However, his attempt is more effective than if he had never even tried at all, and had only used facts and statistics.

Therefore,

pathos is important.

In fact, people may argue with me, but I think it is the most important, because before a person can look at the facts of an argument, they need something that will catch their interest and appeal to them first, and that is exactly what pathos does.

thank you and good night.

-Tina