Ethos Pathos Logos
I wanted to discuss this concept because it seems to be the one that comes up most often in my classes. I have taken several communication classes and also a couple critical thinking classes. The concept of ethos pathos logos has been discussed in all of them. I think its essential to know and understand the meaning and how important they are to public speaking.
Ethos: The book describes this as personal character. This was the moral part of the human that we tend to judge. As I have learned it, ethos is the ethical part of the speaker and the credibility that it gives them. I think this one is pretty huge because if you are not respected then you won't be able to make convincing arguments.
Pathos: The book describes this as the ability to arouse emotions. This is one that a lot of political ads tend to use... I don't tend to be moved as much when people use the pathos, but that also depends on the argument they are trying to make. Protests, petitions, groups fighting for change tend to use pathos to get people to join them (PETA uses this a little too much sometimes). I would have to say that I have been moved by pathos before... I cut the rings on those plastic soda bottle holders because I was depressed to hear that birds get stuck in them once they are thrown into the landfill.
Logos: My favorite one! The book describes this as logic. This idea is pretty plain and simple, but also hugely powerful. Logical arguments are the ones that tend to stick in my brain. I would hope that others were more inclined to hear about logical ideas versus fantastical ones. I wish that more people would use logical to make their case, it is easier to earn the ethos part when they do. I find more credibility on a person that uses statistics and facts to prove a point. Unfortunately these days people tend to use pathos more; a great example of people who should use this more is politicians.
Indeed, I agree pathos can be overused in today's society, and logos is imperative in making a solid argument. However, it seems even if an orator is not known to have be a credible authority on a subject, if they are sincerely passionate about their presentation and able to back it up with logical facts, I think a mature (little to do with actual age, and more to do with education and good common sense) audiences will in-part listen to and consider their viewpoint. On the contrary, if a speaker is merely presenting using logos, sound as those facts may be, I believe it becomes easy to lose the audience unless they, too, are primarily prone to assimilate information purely from a logical viewpoint, with little pathos censored into their assimilation.
ReplyDelete