/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20583338]

Ethos is as stupid as Pathos prove me wrong. Logos is the only one worth a damn

[Anonymous No.20583346]

>Logos is the only one worth a damn

[Anonymous No.20583352]

>>20583346
Arguing credibility is bunk if you can't prove your point and arguing emotion is woman-tier.

[Anonymous No.20583357]

>>20583338
I just might agree with you.

[Anonymous No.20583367]

>>20583338
Without the others, you are just a calculator.

[Anonymous No.20583388]

>>20583367
Fine with me. The calculator is one of the best inventions of all time. What is true is what is true. I don't care what someone feels to be true or what person has been deemed the true teller. The calculator is not corruptible. It can only be wrong or imprecise.

[Anonymous No.20583415]

>>20583338
Reason is a tool of the will

[Anonymous No.20583433]

>>20583338
Absolute retard take, imagine going to a used car lot, a psychopathic salesman with a history of ripping off other customers passionlessly presents an argument why this car is the right one for you - he explains that it is efficient, has plenty of space after asking you what you do for work etc. Walking past at the time is old Ted, a respected retired car mechanic, well known for never ripping off customers, and he shakes his head and says "don't do it, there's other problems with the car".
Retard OP goes with the notorious psychopath because "logos" and then finds out that he failed to include in his "logos" that the timing belt needs replacing, whoops.

[Anonymous No.20583445]

>>20583433
Even if the salesman were credible, the timing belt may still need replacing? This argument is based on pathos

[Anonymous No.20583466]

>>20583388
>he thinks he can tell what's true
lol

[Anonymous No.20583467]

>>20583338
They're just rhetorical appeals/approaches you retard not something in you as discrete faculties.

[Anonymous No.20583471]

That's why Bakker rules supreme, TRUTH SHINES

[Anonymous No.20583477]

>>20583433
Why can't mr. nice faggot use logos in this gay example? He just has to be coy and expect everyone knows him as Deputy Do-good. Give a better one.

[Anonymous No.20583481]

>>20583467
Using ethos or pathos for argument holds no water while logos reigns supreme.

[Anonymous No.20583492]

>>20583445
I think you're missing the point, firstly that the Ethos of the mechanic is much more trustworthy than the psychopathic salesman - ethos is about disposition, and habit... indeed you can reason that the argument presented by the salesman might be incomplete and exclude the fact that the timing belt (or anything else wrong) is faulty or in need of replacing. No pure-logos reasoning will ever include every fact, because time is short - both Aristotle and Quintilian also advise avoiding the 'weak basis' in deliberative speeches such as this. There will always be some strategic omission even if the orator is acting in good faith by excluding what is irrelevant or highly improbable.
Only a moron would trust the very tailored and specific argument of the salesman and ignore the reputational standing of the mechanic: which is what OP is arguing, ironically enough entirely from a place of Ethos and Pathos as he presents no reason why Logos is "better" only implies it, and doesn't present a reason why Pathos and Ethos are "stupid", again only implies it - which is a lack of Logos.

[Anonymous No.20583496]

>>20583477
Because: fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. If you don't think people's behaviors and moral choices in the past are indicative of the completeness or accuracy of their arguments, then you're a fool.

[Anonymous No.20583502]

>>20583481
ok and? logos used in argument is always streamlined for getting a desired result and is therefore anti-logos (or at least as unreliable as the other two). and is bound up in the other two in order to do this. logos only need serve you as far as your listener can reason and scrutinise form (which may not be very far). the point is these are not real things but convenient labels for our approaches in rhetoric. dependent on what is rhetoric is, its desired result, and the listener's mind.

logos used within the confines of your own mind, a cleaner slate than rhetoric, is still subordinate to your mind, your whims, and is therefore anti-logos in this pure sense you pretend exists.

[Anonymous No.20583505]

>>20583388
>proven wrong, he accepts his fate as a machine.
Alright, goodbye little machine
*turns lights out*

[Anonymous No.20583506]

>>20583481
>this argument brought to you by pathos alone

[Anonymous No.20583509]

Rank them:
Pathos > Logos >>>>>> Ethos

[Anonymous No.20583513]

>>20583492
Your "ethos" for the mechanic implies I know both the mechanic's and the saleman's reputation. I would never know that. Unless I do and your argument hinges on some baseless certainty that my preference for logos bars me from using my own to ask the salesman why I would trust a notorious dickhead just because he can present some fair reasons why the car might be good for me.

[Anonymous No.20583518]

>>20583496
Ok, so what Mr Rogers town do you live in where you know the histories and dispositions of some fuckers who work at the car dealership?

[Anonymous No.20583553]

>>20583506
I'm not making an argument unless you deem that statement as an argument in itself. My role in this thread is the opposite of making an argument. I'm presenting a statement to get you all to argue. I'm simply a ball for you to hit.

[Anonymous No.20583632]

>>20583513
>implies I know both the mechanic's and the saleman's reputation.
Yes, yes it does imply - I'm glad you understand how accomodative presupposition works. But also the inverse is also true, if you don't trust someone because you don't know their reputation that itself is a appeal to Ethos. The point is, that it is rational in many situations to trust what you know about a person's disposition, their consistent behaviors rather than the isolated soundness of an argument.

[Anonymous No.20583670]

Nope. Firstly "Ethos" is not "credibility" but closer to "moral character" and more specifically is that which they do consistently. But before I continue, do non-verbal demonstrations of aptitude (poesis) count as Logos? If you were auditioning two pizza chefs, would the chef who makes the best pizza as tasted by a panel of judges constitute a appeal to 'logos' or would we have to interview both of them where they each give a deliberative speech to explain why they are the best choice for the pizza chef by way of a reasoned argumentative speech? Personally, I think I'd rather taste the pizza.
But anyway, it's still wrong because Aristotle said the best ethos is that which tends towards Eudaimonia, if someone has a bad ethos, then no matter how sound their argument they probably will either intentionally or unintentionally fuck you over (i.e. he could present a sound investment proposition, take you money, but because he's a crook - run off). But the man of good ethos is always more trustworthy than the man with bad ethos but good logos. More to the point, since Eudomania necessarily implies Sofia and Phronesis, even if we don't understand the argument made by two orators, we can have more faith in the man of good Ethos because we know he has Political skill (phronesis) but is also of upstanding morals. However the man of good ethos is not always the best orator, for this comes under the faculty of Teche, not Sofia and Phronesis, and as such even a man of sufficiently good character, may not be able to explain in an intelligible manner the logos. More especially if his knowledge is esoteric. After all Aristotle himself distinguished between the Acromatic works and the more popular and accessible Exoterik works.

[Anonymous No.20583676]

>>20583632
I would never be at a car dealership talking to a salesman. What is your point?

[Anonymous No.20583691]

>>20583670
This would imply you can logically deduce superiority of the subjective with the pizza. You can't. The only superiority is personal taste or sales.

[Anonymous No.20583700]

>>20583676
> that it is rational in many situations to trust what you know about a person's disposition, their consistent behaviors rather than the isolated soundness of an argument.

[Anonymous No.20583710]

>>20583691
I'm afraid I don't understand, are you saying that you should select which pizza chef is best based on their arguments without tasting the pizza, or that tasting the pizza is the best means of selecting the pizza chef - but even if there's a panel of judges who might all have slightly different subjective tastes - there is no certainty that the choice will translate to sales: but it is sill better than basing it on arguments and not tasting?

[Anonymous No.20583844]

>>20583338
Perception is reality. Credibility is how you justify your perceptions, anything that is true to you is only so because you trust it. Emotions are how you filter the importance of information you believe to be true. No credibility, no emotions, all you have is blinding information, too many trees and not enough forests.

[Anonymous No.20583934]

>>20583338
Praise Jesus.