From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


if someone wants to actually do something for this page, i'd suggest adding more information about how it relates to the three audience appeals addressed in Rhetoric (ethos, pathos, and logos). It would probably be fairy easy to just look at a few other pages and see what's being said on them. --Vicapowell39 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


pathos: The effect of literature which makes the reader feel sadness or pity

  • That's actually not the only definition, and by the way, you put that on the Talk page instead of the article. According to Princeton's Wordnet [1], "pathos" is:
    • "poignancy (a quality that arouses emotions (especially pity or sorrow))"
    • "commiersation, puty, ruth, pathos (a feeling of sympathy and sorrow for the misfortunes of others)"
    • "a style that has the power to evoke feelings"
Runa27 00:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


The article needs some structure, it is almost illegible. -- Aethralis 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


Why does "pathetic" redirect here? Mouse 04:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mousy, why does it redirect here? It makes no sense to me since it isn't mentioned in the article. Oh and that doesn't answer the question, I want some intelligent answer, not obvious answer. TheBlazikenMaster 17:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It now redirects to the wictionary definition.--   Avg    23:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's possible somebody none-too-wisely tried to draw the (semi-)obvious connection between pathos and empathy. If you look at the Pathetic fallacy article, it notes that the term's first half comes from "empathy". However, unfortunately normal English does not use "pathetic" that way, so it ended up just being a really weird redirect; switching the redirect to Wikitionary is probably for the best, all things considered. (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


why is this article so short? Fruckert (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


This article is clearly about "pathos" understood as the rhetorical technique, especially as theorized by Aritotle. Since "pathos" has multiple meanings absolutely different from that (for example, as used by Plato or by Nietzsche), I suggest that the article must be either retitled "Pathos (rhetorical technique)" (or something similar) or completed at least with a mention of the rest of the most important historical uses of the concept. Otherwise, it is misleading for those who, having found the term in a different context, arrive at the article and receive the impression that "pathos" is solely, or primarily, a rhetorical technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Relation to logos[edit]

Can examples or further explanation be provided for the following sentence?

"Another interpretation is that logos invokes emotions relevant to the issue at hand, whereas pathos invokes emotions that have no bearing on the issue, in that the pathē they stimulate lack, or at any rate are not shown to possess, any intrinsic connection with the point at issue."

--BB12 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-standard cites of Aristotle[edit]

The secondary references to Aristotle by the editors who used Kennedy's Aristotle On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse are, to the best of my knowledge, non-standard and therefore I find it impossible to be sure what passages in Aristotle are being cited. Standard practice is to cite large sections of Aristotle's writings by name of work, book number, and chapter number, e.g. Rhetoric III, 18 or Rhet. 3.18 etc. Standard practice for referring to shorter passages is to use the Bekker numbers, e.g. Rhet. 1418b39-1419a5, etc. Apparently — and I don't have the book to verify this — Kennedy, in his translation, subdivides the chapters with his own numbering (probably to make his commentary easier to follow) and thus we get cites to "Book 2.1.5–9" and the like. It would be beneficial to those who want to look more deeply into what Aristotle was saying to replace those 'Kennedy numbers' with the equivalent Bekker numbers. I hope someone with access to both Kennedy's book and a Bekker-numbered translation of the Rhetoric will do that, please. — Blanchette (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)