Richard Whately

According to Richard Whately, persuasion and rhetoric sometimes revolve around logic, and sometimes don't. From previous posts and even one of my papers, I attack logic in rhetoric. Logic is always changing and isn't fixed, even if we'd like to think it is. However, I will focus on a different part of the subject, trying not to merely reiterate what I've been saying all semester.

Going back to Aristotle, anybody in rhetoric knows that he believed in "ethos," "pathos," and "logos." It appears that Whately believed that there was a definite connection with the three, or at least two of them. He didn't go too in-depth into "pathos," so I won't either. Aristotle himself, liked to believe that rhetoric could be purely logical, and not need the other two aspects. I wouldn't agree with this, and either would Whately.

He cites an example where testimonials are often made more believable by a person's character, or "ethos." Although maybe it doesn't translate exactly across, "ethos" is often the character or credibility of a person. In a court case, a person with good character, likable, and etc. is often a better witness to use. Even in juries, the court looks for people in higher character to make the "right" decisions.

There is certainly a need for "ethos" along with "logos" in rhetoric. Relying heavily on one would be a huge mistake. Incorporating "pathos," an argument, claim, or etc. that is based solely on "pathos" or emotions will eventually lack with the audience. An argument can be emotional, but needs some sort of support, or "logos" to go with it. Along the same lines, if an argument is purely (theoretically) logical, and lacks emotions or a character-driven person, it won't connect with the audience.

I'm not sure if rhetoric should deal with emotions. On a theoretical level, it'd be nice to take emotions out because they are often irrational. However, it is certainly impossible to do this. That is why the perfect combination of the three aspects is necessary to make the best argument.