[I just posted the following on my other blog, Name Pending. I don't know why I have two blogs, especially if I'm just going to post the same things on one as on the other (even though there are some differences). I think it has to do with the difficulty of coming up with a name that I like and that I feel contains in germ the logic of what I will write on that blog. That's a mouthful, sorry about that last sentence. But I'm getting a bit side tracked. Here's what I wrote.]
This is from Aristotle's Rhetoric (some translations of the book are called The Art of Rhetoric). You can pick up any copy of the Rhetoric and find this passage at 1356a. It's a bit lengthy, but well, it's worth it.
This is where Aristotle introduces ethos, pathos, and logos in Chapter 2 of Book 1:
"Of the means of persuasion provided by way of speech, there are three forms, for some are in the character of the speaker [ethos], some consist in putting the hearer into a certain disposition [emotion, pathos], and some are present in the speech itself by showing or appearing to show something [logos]. Persuasion is by means of character [ethos] whenever the speech is spoken in such a way as to make the speaker trustworthy; for we are more persuaded, and more quickly, by decent people, about all matters without exception, and . . . character, one might say, has in it just about the most decisive means of persuasion. Persuasion is by means of the hearers whenever they are led on into passion [pathos] by the speech, for we do not render our judgments the same way when grieved as when delighted, or when friendly as when hostile . . . And persuasion is by means of speech whenever we show something that is true, or appears so, from things that are persuasive on each subject."
Now, after typing all that out, I feel a sort of desire to say a bit about it.
One of the things that Aristotle implies here is that there is a sort of hierarchy of the three rhetorical appeals: ethos is at the top, pathos is next, and logos is at the bottom. The reason for this is because when we hear a logical argument, we believe it, but our brains actually reason differently depending on the emotional state that they--we--are in (hence Aristotle's statement, "we do not render our judgments the same way when grieved as when delighted, or when friendly as when hostile"). New studies in Embodied Cognitive Science will actually confirm this idea that, at least to some degree, we reason from emotional states of mind (see, for example, Mark Johnson's The Meaning of the Body). Crazy, right? But there is an appeal that's even higher than pathos, and that's ethos. Ethos is at the top of the hierarchy because ethos is character--what and who a person is--and the emotions strong as they are, are in the body, both the body of the speaker and the listener, and the body is an essential part of who and what a person is. Additionally, when a speaker makes an emotional appeal on an audience, if the audience trusts that speaker, then the audience will transfer that trust to the emotions that they are now having! "[F]or we are more persuaded, and more quickly, by decent people, about all matters without exception." Another translation of the same passage reads, "We believe good men more fully and more readily than others." When it comes to ethos, trust is the key word.
So here's the question. To what degree is trust an emotion?
So here's the question. To what degree is trust an emotion?
Interesting. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever actually read any of Aristotle's "The Hierarchy of Appeals." Regarding your question about trust, I think it all depends on what you are trusting in. Our senses of emotion are aroused differently when directed from one object to the next or from one person to another. For example, if I want to rock climb up a steep surface, I must trust in my gear. My decision is based on my knowledge that safety precautions are in place and that the ropes and carabiners are strong enough to catch me if I fall. In this way, the logic of my safety helps to dispel the emotions of fear that may arise. Occasionally, the gear I use might need to be replaced. Once again, it is up to my logic to determine when to stop trusting in the gear I have and when to purchase better equipment.
ReplyDeleteTrusting in people is very different. People change, their moods and credibility change depending on how they feel. Then there's also the difference between trusting in a person you know well and trusting a stranger. In both places fear can be an issue. Sometimes fear is more logical and sometimes it's far more emotional. In reverse, the same can be said for trust. The level of emotion used in trust really hinges on the situation and elements involved. There are several different types of trust. A person's trust can be unfounded. At the same time, it can be based off of previous experience and inner debate.
Perhaps you could specify. What kind of trust are you referring to?