Page 211 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 211
rhetoric – martial art or the art of winning
the soul by discourse? 211
the subject. Which perception appears to be closer to the contemporary
definition of the persuader-politician? With the power of PR prevailing
in the public eye, shaping the ethos of every celebrity in such a manner
that by means of distinctiveness s/he becomes persuasive, losing the real
meaning on the way, the answer is: the latter. Today, Aristotelian ethos
is substituted for a highly powerful “image” exerting a considerable ef-
fect on the persuasive language, the success of which is often founded on
the image (dress, speech), and political charisma (voice, language, or ap-
pearance).
3.1.3. Pathos
Pathos is equivalent to persuasion through an emotion that is
roused (Aristotle, 1959: 17), thus the orator by virtue of “a certain frame
of mind” entices the audience. The persuader will intentionally use an
emotional appeal, which many a time constitutes a source of distrust of
rhetoric, owing to “its association with insincerity, irrationality and rab-
ble-rousing” (Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005: 55). It seems that there is
no other way but to employ emotions to manipulate the audience. Af-
ter all, as Damasio (1999, quoted in Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005: 55)
holds “humans cannot think properly unless, as a prior condition, they
feel”. Downes (2000, in Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005: 55) adds that
what we feel mirrors what we think by means of semiotic systems, i.e.
verbal and non-verbal signs. Nonetheless, it should be propounded that
emotions can obscure the view, preventing people from gaining a broad-
er and a true perspective on the issues raised, and when out of control
can threaten and discourage the audience.
Cockcroft and Cockcroft (2005: 57) propose two kinds of emotions:
universal and contingent. The former reflects emotions common to hu-
manity (e.g. joy, anger, fear), the latter emotions as socially conditioned
manifestation (e.g. pride, contempt, indignation, guilt). Both are cul-
ture-specific, context-dependent, historically-bound and central to per-
suasive rhetoric. Both are present in literary and functional persuasion,
though universal emotion is often associated with literary persuasion or
formal discourse (Nash, 1989).
The use of pathos by the orator will in a substantial manner depend
on the agreement between the persuader, the topic and the audience in
a socially structured context. Notwithstanding, it is within the abili-
ty of the speaker or writer that s/he adjusts the language to match the
topic raised and to appeal to the audience. Therefore it is language that
plays a vital role in the persuasive discourse. It is also via language that
the soul by discourse? 211
the subject. Which perception appears to be closer to the contemporary
definition of the persuader-politician? With the power of PR prevailing
in the public eye, shaping the ethos of every celebrity in such a manner
that by means of distinctiveness s/he becomes persuasive, losing the real
meaning on the way, the answer is: the latter. Today, Aristotelian ethos
is substituted for a highly powerful “image” exerting a considerable ef-
fect on the persuasive language, the success of which is often founded on
the image (dress, speech), and political charisma (voice, language, or ap-
pearance).
3.1.3. Pathos
Pathos is equivalent to persuasion through an emotion that is
roused (Aristotle, 1959: 17), thus the orator by virtue of “a certain frame
of mind” entices the audience. The persuader will intentionally use an
emotional appeal, which many a time constitutes a source of distrust of
rhetoric, owing to “its association with insincerity, irrationality and rab-
ble-rousing” (Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005: 55). It seems that there is
no other way but to employ emotions to manipulate the audience. Af-
ter all, as Damasio (1999, quoted in Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005: 55)
holds “humans cannot think properly unless, as a prior condition, they
feel”. Downes (2000, in Cockcroft and Cockcroft, 2005: 55) adds that
what we feel mirrors what we think by means of semiotic systems, i.e.
verbal and non-verbal signs. Nonetheless, it should be propounded that
emotions can obscure the view, preventing people from gaining a broad-
er and a true perspective on the issues raised, and when out of control
can threaten and discourage the audience.
Cockcroft and Cockcroft (2005: 57) propose two kinds of emotions:
universal and contingent. The former reflects emotions common to hu-
manity (e.g. joy, anger, fear), the latter emotions as socially conditioned
manifestation (e.g. pride, contempt, indignation, guilt). Both are cul-
ture-specific, context-dependent, historically-bound and central to per-
suasive rhetoric. Both are present in literary and functional persuasion,
though universal emotion is often associated with literary persuasion or
formal discourse (Nash, 1989).
The use of pathos by the orator will in a substantial manner depend
on the agreement between the persuader, the topic and the audience in
a socially structured context. Notwithstanding, it is within the abili-
ty of the speaker or writer that s/he adjusts the language to match the
topic raised and to appeal to the audience. Therefore it is language that
plays a vital role in the persuasive discourse. It is also via language that
