Philosophers could have predicted the Presidential race...dead on the money.
Almost 2,500 years ago, Aristotle wrote his book Rhetoric.
Which horse usually wins the race: ethos, logos or pathos?
Which horse usually wins the race: ethos, logos or pathos?
In the case of Obama, there was the probability of free stuff. Come to think of it, most pathos made it seem as if it was patriotic to get free stuff. Trump's appeal was pathos, but of a different sort. No free stuff because it wasn't free and all the crooks who promised it had created a swamp of fever dreams that needed to be drained, like a pus filled wound needs to be drained. (How's that for pathos?)
I'm laughing just the same.
Trump concentrated more on Logos. His appeals made sense. (if you dont have borders you dont have a country- for example). He had better ethos than crooked hillary, and was a more confident and presentable person, especially when his family was involved.
So he won.
I think the author takes a more traditional approach to these concepts.
That's how trumpet, obobo and billbob won their elections...Kennedy too but Regan had all three.
I wonder which concept Rand saw as dominate in her day.
Looking back in history though, it does seem that Pathos does usually win the day.
Thanks.
"The duty of rhetoric is to deal with such matters as we deliberate upon without arts or systems to guide us, in the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument or follow a long chain of reasoning." Aristotle
Respectfully,
O.A.
Lacking both ehtos and logos, the old raspy-voiced evil hag loser still possessed the pathos to create a loud minority of very angry snowflakes.
Or just plain "flakes," but there ya go . . .
California voters are like granola, once you eliminate the nuts and fruits, all you have left are the flakes.
Me dino have never seen no "angry corn flakes" you speak of.
But me dino done seen some "frosted flakes," though.
Uh,-huh, me have.
Whoa, me dino just reread what I just wrote.
Aw, let that "Colorado high" stand.
While going to Troy State, such was my last sarcastic communication to a girlfriend who devolved into just wanting to sit around stoned.
Last I heard she got raped by her drug dealer and dropped out of college.
I agree that Hillary Clinton, thinking to emphasize pathos, in fact lacked it. She gave lackluster performances. One need only have compared her half-empty venues to Donald Trump's filled-to-overflowing venues to understand that.
But I maintain Hillary didn't have logos either. Logos is about whether your words add up. Well, something clearly didn't add up, and now the people finally began to realize that.
And as for ethos--Hillary lost the ethos comparison when people understood that, for all her attempts to emphasize pathos, she betrayed it whenever the betrayal suited her. She had no ethical compass other than "the wishes and desires of the biggest prospective donors to something called the Clinton Foundation."
Donald Trump captured ethos. Better a self-made business emperor than one "much dispos'd to have an itching palm,/To sell and mart [her] offices for gold/To undeservers." He also captured logos--he correctly and effectively pointed out that Democratic policies, and Hillary policies, didn't add up. Or else they added up, all right--to a United States Ambassador and countless other good men and women getting themselves killed. And he had pathos because he spoke directly to the frustrations of the people.
That's why he won. Trump came as close as any candidate to Reagan as the master of all three.
Instead of ascending into consciousness they instead tried to level the playing field by making everyone like them. It's the same will all manner of perversion.
($&^% them and their idiotic anti-liberty statist rubbish.)
It remains to be seen if Trump understands and obeys those limitations and respects those rights.
I think we both hope Trump understands and will obey.
Is DC a medical mary jane territory?
hahahahahahaaaaaa
Just to be accurate...is that a Capital ( you used?