Pathos (Greek: πάθος, (Translations)) is one of the three modes of persuasion in rhetoric (along with ethos and logos). Pathos appeals to the audience's emotions. It is a part of Aristotle's philosophies in rhetoric.
Emotional appeal can be accomplished in a multitude of ways:
* by metaphor or story telling, common as a hook,
* by a general passion in the delivery and an overall amount of emotional items in the text of the speech, or in writing.
In rhetoric, pathos is the use of emotional appeals to alter the audience's judgment. A common use of pathos in argument is creating a sense of rejection if the audience doesn't agree. Creating a fear of rejection is in essence, creating a pathos argument.
Over emotionalism can be the result of an excess of pathos.
Let us for example take into account the following passage from the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.
Every enhancement of the type “man” has so far been the work of an aristocratic society—and it will be so again and again—a society that believes in the long ladder of an order of rank and differences in value between man and man, and that needs slavery in some sense or other. Without that pathos of distance which grows out of the ingrained difference between strata—when the ruling caste constantly looks afar and looks down upon subjects and instruments and just as constantly practices obedience and command, keeping down and keeping at a distance—the other, more mysterious pathos could not have grown up either—the craving for an ever new widening of distances within the soul itself, the development of ever higher, rare, more remote, further-stretching, more comprehensive states—in brief, simply the enhancement of the type “man,” the continual “self-overcoming of man,” to use a moral formula in a supra-moral sense.
Beyond Good and Evil, 257
Here we see an almost exquisite use of the word pathos which has been used not as a definition of excellence but as a condition of excellence, thereby leading the reader into the illusion that without imposing the condition of "pathos" on human excellence there is no difference between the higher type of man and the lower type of man. Such a "pathos" of distance between man and man is anything if not unnatural. The purpose of the word itself in such terms is designed to make the reader emotionally disposed to the notion that without their own "pathos" of distance they cannot distinguish the Higher man in themselves from the Lower man in themselves. This is clearly an emotionally manipulative exercise in the power of the use of the word "pathos."
The term is still commonly used in this context by critics, especially in positive reference to the dramatic performances of actors. Naturally critics are still disposed to expressing their own type of Higher critique from that of the Lower critique, hence the appropriation of "Pathos" as a tool of critical evaluation at a comfortable distance.
2001 did indeed have a story, what I think these guys are complaining about is the lack of a steady, constant narrative throughout.
2001 did indeed have a story, what I think these guys are complaining about is the lack of a steady, constant narrative throughout.
There are a bunch of images that can be explained into a story, but only by someone who read the book. (Or wikipedia entry)
Who did Blowup? TVC, can you suggest more movies in the same vein as 2001?
I do love intellectual stories.
I hope all this rabble doesn't make me come off as an intellectual elitist, because I hate those fucks. But facts are facts!
sometimes, pd, a narrative can be about a concept rather than a character. for example, a dialectic -- which is what a great deal of 2001 actually is -- examining the meaning of consciousness. we follow the exchange to come to a realization about a concept, not to find out more about the participant. Dave and HAL are talking, and the results are spooky. sometimes, people like you simply aren't ready!BORING
I'd rather watch A Beautiful Mind. Now that's classic cinema from a real director :punch
sometimes, pd, a narrative can be about a concept rather than a character. for example, a dialectic -- which is what a great deal of 2001 actually is -- examining the meaning of consciousness. we follow the exchange to come to a realization about a concept, not to find out more about the participant. Dave and HAL are talking, and the results are spooky. sometimes, people like you simply aren't ready!BORING
I'd rather watch A Beautiful Mind. Now that's classic cinema from a real director :punch
one of the worst Academy Award winners. Only Forrest Gump and Crash are worse (in recent history).
Is Moulin Rogue a good movie
sometimes, pd, a narrative can be about a concept rather than a character. for example, a dialectic -- which is what a great deal of 2001 actually is -- examining the meaning of consciousness. we follow the exchange to come to a realization about a concept, not to find out more about the participant. Dave and HAL are talking, and the results are spooky. sometimes, people like you simply aren't ready!BORING
I'd rather watch A Beautiful Mind. Now that's classic cinema from a real director :punch
Dude, that movie is one of the worst Academy Award winners. Only Forrest Gump and Crash are worse (in recent history).
Is Moulin Rogue a good movie
sometimes, pd, a narrative can be about a concept rather than a character. for example, a dialectic -- which is what a great deal of 2001 actually is -- examining the meaning of consciousness. we follow the exchange to come to a realization about a concept, not to find out more about the participant. Dave and HAL are talking, and the results are spooky. sometimes, people like you simply aren't ready!BORING
I'd rather watch A Beautiful Mind. Now that's classic cinema from a real director :punch
Dude, that movie is one of the worst Academy Award winners. Only Forrest Gump and Crash are worse (in recent history).
What does that tell you about 2001? :santocry
sometimes, pd, a narrative can be about a concept rather than a character. for example, a dialectic -- which is what a great deal of 2001 actually is -- examining the meaning of consciousness. we follow the exchange to come to a realization about a concept, not to find out more about the participant. Dave and HAL are talking, and the results are spooky. sometimes, people like you simply aren't ready!BORING
I'd rather watch A Beautiful Mind. Now that's classic cinema from a real director :punch
Dude, that movie is one of the worst Academy Award winners. Only Forrest Gump and Crash are worse (in recent history).
What does that tell you about 2001? :santocry
2001 came out in the 1960's and won several awards.
Is Moulin Rogue a good movie
Is Moulin Rogue a good movie
Is Moulin Rogue a good movie
It's better than 2001 and Blade Runner, so I'd say it's ok.
Is Moulin Rogue a good movie
It's better than 2001 and Blade Runner, so I'd say it's ok.
>:(