Blog 4: How Emotional is Too Emotional

commons.wikimedia.org

I can not believe that the first week of college passed by so quickly. In English class today, we started off with an adorable cat meme then explored the National Institute of Civil Discourse. The class then started a conversation about the role of pathos.The first image to pop into my head was the ASPCA commercials. Ideally, pathos should be used sparingly to act as channel through which ideas flow from the author to the audience.

This channel serves as a link allowing the audience to better understand the topic at hand and the people involved in the discussion which fosters an understanding environment among the people involved. Unfortunately, this is often used to deceive people due to its effectiveness. Depending on how pathos is utilized, it can add or detract from other components of an argument.

From the Atlantic article, many commenters showed hostility toward others whose views differed from theirs. There were even hints of scathing sarcasm in some comments. Not many people are likely to immediately agree with such comments unless they fall in line with their beliefs. As a result,their attempts to elicit negative emotions have proven to detract from yet also add to their comments.

In terms of logos, pathos tends to add to the comments by making them appear more surely. Any powerful emotion for that matter does this too. Sometimes hate could bring out points of views that one has never considered before. As long as the comment has substantial, reasonable evidence, a pinch of anger or frustration could garner support for that comment from disillusionment. Like any of the other emotions, anger clouds people sense of logic which might make the comment even more appealing. If the underlying intention is this, one may question the motives of the commenter.

If not used correctly, pathos could undermine the commenter's ethos. Too much ethos and the person might appear to be viewed as unusual and this disregarded and too little ethos, and the person will seem cold and distant which also is not wanted. Pathos is the link between the author and his/her speakers, fostering understanding through shared feelings.Unfortunately, in the Atlantic article, too much ethos has led to name calling. Some commenters tried to make poignant statements, but ended up offending others thus making themselves appear rude and immature,

Pathos can also be used as a weapon. This is usually when commenters fling insults at each other creating a hostile territory. If true or reasonable, that insult could undermine the values of another commenter. One example is the discourse between commenters ktom and Jiffy pop. In presumable anger, ktom started using situations to prove his point, but in the process, came off as rascist. Jiffy pop made the smart choice of deescalating his anger making him seem more reasonable near the end.

Without pathos, ideas would be void of personal meaning to other people. In order to make sense of the world, ideas have to be relatable. Pathos does its job well, but as an old axiom goes, "must be taken in moderation." I just wonder is emotion a barrier to pure knowledge? Can humans better perceive this world if there were no emotional distractions?