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?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
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.
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.
Thanks.
Looking back in history though, it does seem that Pathos does usually win the day.