So, Christmas, for me, has always meant two things: optimism and fighting. Both of which will be the subject of this blog. Having spent the day at a holiday family reunion type event, I had my share of arguments with my extended family (if this isn't a holiday tradition for you too, then please let me know how you get around it). Needless to say, the stuff we argued over wasn't really worth arguing in the first place. But that didn't stop us from turning red. There's also been some argumentation going around the AFLM blogs in this most joyous of occasions, so I felt the need to examine just how we argue, and particularly how close friends argue.
Most of us know the three elements that make up rhetoric: ethos, pathos, and logos. Each has its place in argument. In today's academia we like to look down on pathos (emotion) in argumentation in favor of logos (logic). This is because pathos is so contingent on the individual, while logos is meant to be universal. So why don't we just eradicate pathos from the rhetorical arena? Simple, because it works. And that's okay.
Since before Plato started spouting off about rhetoric, rhetoricians tried to see just how to get their listeners emotionally involved. If you're passionate about a subject or ideal, then you should be just that; passionate. However, problems occur when pathos runs rampant. I think you'll find, if you look closely enough (or honestly at just a glance), that today's political arena is based highly on pathos. Politicians prey on the convictions of their audience, adamantly guarding a set group of ideals that are seemingly inherently better than that of their opponents. The other side doesn't deserve a second look. What's the result? People yell, insults are thrown around, and Bush is elected president.
So what about ethos? Well, I think that you'll find when your arguments are with someone close to you (girlfriends, boyfriends, family, etc etc) that pathos seems to fly off the handle. It seems that the fights with the people closest to you are the ones that last the longest. I think this stems from the fact that a relationship has already been established between the arguers. One party can feel violated by the opinion of someone they thought they knew so well, or one party may need to hold their own in the eyes of their opponent just to prove themselves. Either way, these situations can cut pretty deep, much deeper than an argument with someone you've never met before. But the cool thing about these arguments is that usually both parties decide to put these differences aside, chill out, and simply stop fighting.
Now, I don't recommend that people simply stop arguing because they're close. I would suggest some sort of combination of the two types of arguments I've talked about. Yelling is fine, anger is natural, and an intellectual argument is even better. But at the end of the day, I think that both parties should shake hands and agree to aim for the other's jugular the next day. Ad hominem really should not be condoned, because the idea, the very heart of the argument, won't advance in the presence of insults.
As for the optimism, well, it seems that the blogoshpere has cooled off and everyone has chilled out for the quickly approaching new year. Our little magazine is quickly growing, issue 3 just dropped digitally, and print copies are on their way. I look forward to the growth of our readership and the continual involvement of our longtime readers (if you could classify AFLM as having been around a long time).
So here's to lookin forward to the new year, a time when we can happily scream at one another and then settle down for a drink,
-Rainamoinen
No comments:
Post a Comment