LOGOS -ETHOS – PATHOS

In order to construct a correct representation of the world, knowledge-oriented theories of argumentation focus on phenomena related to the objects of debate (categorizations; physical environment of the facts; probable and necessary signs; causal and analogical networks, etc.), and the representational function of language (well-constructed definitions, univocity, etc.). The construction and strategic management of people and their emotions is essential to the overall orientation of rhetorical discourse toward persuasion and action: its goals are to make people think, feel and act. Accomplished action is the only criterion of successful persuasion, which would be unduly reduced to creating or strengthening the mind’s adherence to a thesis, see argumentation 1, definitions. The rhetorical judge is not persuaded unless he rules in favor of the persuader.

The connections between beliefs and actions are far from clear, see motives and reasons. It is said that a congressman once replied to someone who tried to persuade him to change his mind, “You can certainly change my mind, but you will not change my vote”; this joke highlights the crucial difference between the determinants of representation and those of action.

Rhetorical technique provides three instruments of persuasion (pistis) derived from the logos, the ethos and the pathos. These instruments, sometimes called « proofs », are used by the speaker not only to create belief, but also to guide the will and determine the action. The first of these instruments is the logos, is based on the proofs, real or apparent, given by the words of the speech itself; the second, ethos, depends on the personal talent and character of the speaker; the third, pathos, on putting the audience in a certain emotional state (Rhet., I, 2, 1356a1; RR, p. 105).

All three forms depend on discourse; « logo-ic«  evidence is purely discursive, while ethotic and pathemic evidence are discursive and para-discursive. The trinity “logos ethos, pathos,” tends to assimilate these three types of evidence, leading to the definition of rhetorical evidence as any sign, verbal or nonverbal, capable of inducing a belief.

Cicero and later rhetorical catechisms assign three goals to the speaker engaged in a persuasion process. He must prove (probare), please (conciliare), and move (movere) (De Or., II, XXVII, p. 114).
— First teach the audience: this is the logo-ic way to persuade: the speech must inform, narrate and argue. This teaching takes an intellectual approach to persuasion, that of evidence and deduction.
— Information and argumentation can be weakened by the boredom and incomprehension of the audience. Therefore, the listener must be given some global substitute for the intellectual mastery, of the case: trust, and building trust is the role of ethos: “maybe you don’t quite understand, but you can trust me”.
— But logos and ethos do not have the power to trigger “acting out”, hence the recourse to pathos. It is not enough to see the good, it is still necessary to want it; the physical emotional tension produced by speech, is said to be the most powerful determinant of the will and action.

Evidence based on logos is considered to be « logical”, objective, at least the only one of the three that serves as evidence in the proper sense of the word. First, it satisfies, at least in part, the propositional condition for argumentation (evidence must be expressed in an identifiable statement, that can be evaluated independently of the conclusion is supports), so it is open to refutation. In contrast, pathemic and ethotic evidence, is expressed indirectly, through the subtlest channels, and is therefore hardly accessible to verbal refutation.
Classical texts insist on the practical superiority of the ethotic and pathemic evidence over logo-ic evidence. Aristotle asserts the primacy of the ethos: « The character of the speaker may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion » (Rhet., I, 2, 1356a10; RR, p. 106), and warns against the overly effective use of the pathos. Cicero and Quintilian virtually assimilate ethos to pathos, in order to affirm the ultimate supremacy of emotion, see subjectivty.