Understanding Pathos: The Power of Emotional Appeal

Pathos is one of the three classical modes of persuasion identified by Aristotle, alongside ethos (credibility) and logos (logic). While ethos builds trust and logos appeals to reason, pathos connects to something more instinctive and human — our emotions. It’s the central feature of rhetoric, the element that makes words not just understood, but felt.

In communication, pathos works by stirring feelings such as empathy, anger, joy, pride, or fear to influence an audience’s response. A public service announcement showing a neglected animal, a charity appeal featuring a hungry child, or a political speech invoking national unity — each uses emotional resonance to drive action. Pathos bridges the gap between intellect and empathy, reminding us that human beings rarely make decisions on facts alone.

Writers, speakers, and advertisers use pathos to create connection and urgency. When I write I consciously try to connect to both the head and heart of my readers. During my advertising career this was always at the forefront of my mind and intentions. 

The power of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech lay not just in its logic or ethics, but in its soaring hope and moral emotion. Similarly, skilled marketers know that appealing to the heart is more effective than listing product features. This is why one of the five power words i advertising is "You."

Pathos, however, can be misused. Overly sentimental or manipulative appeals may backfire, eroding trust or overshadowing substance. It's insulting and demeaning when you feel like you've been manipulated. The best communicators balance pathos with logos and ethos — emotion supported by truth and credibility.

The power of Bob Dylan's songwriting is directly related to these three things, authenticity, truth and emotional connection.

Ultimately, pathos reminds us that persuasion is not merely about winning arguments but moving people. To persuade, inspire, or motivate, one must touch the emotional core of the audience. Logic may convince the mind, but emotion compels the will — which is why pathos remains one of the most powerful forces in all human communication.

Kevin Shau: Using the Humanities to Promote Individual Excellence

"Hi, I’m Kevin Shau, a humanist, writer, photographer, mentor, and website designer. This site is dedicated to the value and practical application of the Liberal Arts." So begins the welcone dialogue at a website called The Classical Humanist. By the end of this first paragraph I was already won over with this invitation: "Feel free to browse the posts in the blog section of this website, then go read a classic."

Our paths crossed via Medium, the Ev Williams brainchild designed to bring writers and readers together. Thus far I've been impressed by the caliber of work being produced by many contributors there. Shau's themes cover the whole gamut from grammar, rhetoric and history to logic, philosophy and literature. His reading list and range of interests is striking, especially for one so young.

His birth name is Kevin O'Shaughnessy, with Kevin Shau apparently his online moniker much as I have self-identified as ennyman. Enjoy this exchange and then visit the links at the close to learn more.

EN: Your interests seem broad. What is your background and what led you into the study of the humanities?

Kevin Shau: I have always been interested in philosophy at some level. During my undergraduate and graduate years, I spent an increasing amount of time studying the history of philosophy with particular emphasis on the Italian Renaissance. This was once a period noticeably absent in many philosophy courses. Professors occasionally touched upon the works of Niccolò Machiavelli but that was about it. In addition to Western philosophy, I studied Eastern philosophy as well – Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shinto. Throughout my college years, I was both deeply interested in philosophy and history as well as appalled by the postmodern influence present in both disciplines. I wanted to study the humanities from a point of view based in practicality. I make it a mission of mine to promote a practical humanities education, focusing on the trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric), aimed at promoting a greater understanding of human nature, and promoting the excellence of the individual.

EN: Who have been your biggest personal influences?

KS: There are quite a few to choose from. I list many on my Classical Humanist site. Leonardo da Vinci is perhaps the most important. I have always been drawn to his towering intellect, based in observation and experience. Leonardo understood the value of the Classics (notably Dante Alighieri) but was also necessarily skeptical of academic Scholasticism. I would argue that the modern postmodern academics are a continuation of those medieval scholastic debates about how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.

Camille Paglia and Jordan Peterson been very influential. I became familiar with Paglia through her appearances on art history documentaries talking, for example, about the work of Sandro Botticelli. Her cultural criticism has proved very insightful. Additionally, she takes a long-term view of history – one going from prehistory to the present. This large time span helps acquaint one with human nature throughout time rather than merely to promote a political ideology.

Jordan Peterson has been one of the greatest influences on my life through his online lectures, Maps of Meaning, and 12 Rules for Life. Before reading Maps of Meaning, I was doubtful that the present time could contribute a text of outstanding quality to posterity. Peterson’s magnum opus proved me very wrong. The levels of insight present in that one book are enough to guarantee Peterson a spot as one of the great thinkers in the history of modern philosophy as well as psychology. Other major influences include the Renaissance humanists, most notably Francesco Petrarch who has done much to popularize appreciation for the liberal arts through study of the ancient Roman Classics.

EN: In your essay on dragons you call Carl Jung “perhaps the greatest genius of the twentieth century.” By what measures do you make this claim? (I give you credit for the qualifier at the beginning of the statement.)

Carl Jung (public domain image

KS: My brief essay on dragons is commentary on a quote from Carl Jung. Having read Jung’s Psychology and Alchemy as well as a major work written by Jung’s protegee Eric Neumann (The Origins and History of Consciousness), I became familiar with Jungian ideas at a much greater depth than the mere encyclopedia entry-style coverage of him in a college psychology course from years ago. I call Jung perhaps the greatest genius of the twentieth century because he explored human nature at greater depths than any other thinker of his time. His work has yet to be incorporated into the general culture (though Joseph Campbell promoted his ideas to a limited degree. Peterson has recently done much to popularize Jung). Carl Jung brings together science and the arts, as well as the secular and the religious, at deep levels.

EN: In your essay on empire you address the five stages of emergence, rise, golden age, decadence and decline of civilization. I believe both Nietzsche and Thomas Mann wrote about that with regards to Germany. (Nietzsche was especially critical of Wagner as emblematic of the decadence, Mann later analyzing the decline.) Where is the United States in regards to the stages of empire? What are the symptoms you see that point to your diagnosis?

KS: The topic of the course of empire is quite fascinating. The general theme can be seen in civilizations throughout history – from Rome and China to the British Empire. While Nietzsche, Mann, Spengler, and others have addressed the topic with regards to Germany, my understanding of the course of empire has been shaped largely by Edward Gibbon’s magisterial History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae. The former analyzes the decay of a great civilization over the course of centuries whereas the latter presents themes related to the rise and fall of civilizations in the history of art. Camille Paglia has said that the United States is in a decadent late phase of culture.

I would be in general agreement with that. The United States, it seems to me, is at a transition from golden age to decadence. The Roman Empire is a good historical equivalent due to the size and influence of each. I would also argue that the history of the Republic of Venice is relevant as well – an Italian power during the Renaissance, it entered a long period of ‘elegant decline’ after trade routes shifted with the ‘discovery’ of the Americas by Europeans. The United States has an empire of bases around the world and has been intervening in the political and economic affairs of other countries really since 1898 with the victory in the Spanish-American War. Extended foreign excursions, an increasingly top-heavy government, a Hollywood-centric culture in which celebrities push political agendas, political correctness, and an emphasis on a kind of infantilizing soft despotism (in which the state takes on more power to act ‘benevolently’) all point toward a move in the general direction of decadence.

EN: You have written about the significance of the historian Herodotus. How was his approach to history different from what you see in academia today?

KS: Herodotus stands at a major symbolic turning point in the history of how human societies were able to comprehend the past. In previous centuries, the past was mythologized to a much greater degree. Think of the Homeric epics. Historical reality was welded together with attention-arresting mythological elements so as to make such events memorable (I am not making the claim that the ancients did this consciously, rather I think that, as humans, we see the world mythologically). The archetypical hero’s journal – present in all cultures – is the best evidence for a mythological way of perceiving the world. This is further delineated by Jordan Peterson in Maps of Meaning: "The world can be validly construed as a forum of action, as well as a place of things. We describe the world as a place of things, using the formal methods of science. The techniques of narrative, however - myth, literature and drama - portray the world as a forum for action. The two forms of representation have been unnecessarily set at odds, because we have not yet formed a clear picture of their respective domains. The domain of the former is the object world-what is, from the perspective of intersubjective perception. The domain of the latter is the world of value-what is and what should be, from the perspective of emotion and action." --Jordan Peterson

Historians from Herodotus on have tried to make sense of the world around them through the use of historical materials. The use and critical assessment of written records became relevant only when increased literacy and comprehensive record-keeping allowed for new ways of looking at the past. This also allowed historians the ability to project their own biases onto the past. The real shift in recent decades can be seen the differences between the humanities and social sciences. The former is centered on the trivium and a deep understanding of human nature (and, thus, at least considers the utility of various ways of looking at the past – including mythological perspectives) while the latter focuses on detail but has the massive drawback of having been polluted with decades of deeply politicized content. The social sciences tend to emphasize the recent over the distant whereas the humanities are centered on quality and insight.

EN: What is the “intellectual dark web” that you refer to in your essay “The Art of Discourse”?

KS: The Intellectual Dark Web is simply a group of people who put interest of ideas above tribalism. The mathematician Eric Weinstein coined the term to refer to an ‘alternative sense-making collective’ composed of people with different backgrounds and political views but united in their interest in deep conversation in order to better understand the world. I make the argument that the Intellectual Dark Web is the modern-day equivalent of the Enlightenment ‘republic of letters.’ Both terms refer to networks of intellectuals outside the mainstream establishment interested in discourse. The mainstream media of today seems more interested in soundbites, things ‘going viral,’ and chasing viewers.

The rise of the podcast has allowed the spoken word to become as powerful as the written word. Additionally, the access costs for creating a platform have decided substantially with the rise of the internet. Jordan Peterson, among others, has drawn parallels between the Gutenberg revolution of the Renaissance and the Digital revolution of the past decade. The level of discourse which the internet has allowed is staggering. Yes, there is obviously an enormous amount of low-quality material on the internet but the quality of some of the discussions platforms like YouTube allow are of the highest quality. People like Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, and Ben Shapiro (all of whom are part of this Intellectual Dark Web) host YouTube interviews with a variety of guests, each of whom brings a wealth of their own experiences to the table. I regard the Intellectual Dark Web as the most important intellectual development since the Age of Enlightenment.

* * * *

Related Links
Kevin Shau's Website: The Classical Humanist
Kevin's Author Page on Amazon

A Dialogue on Writing with David Beard

David Beard received his Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Scientific & Technical Communication in 2002 from the University of Minnesota, Department of Rhetoric. He has written extensively on this topic of his interest and was editor, with Richard Enos, of the book Advances in the History of Rhetoric: The First Six Years. Late this fall we met for the first time at an art opening in downtown Duluth. He is currently an assistant professor of writing studies at UMD.

Ennyman: Whom would you consider the most significant American writers of the past 100 years? And which authors have been your personal favorites or biggest influences?

David Beard: The most significant writers in the last 100 years in our nation? I don't think anyone has surpassed Fitzgerald as an expression of the flaws of the American dream. I love teaching The Great Gatsby. (We are lucky to have a Gatsby expert at UW Superior, Deborah Schlacks.)

But when I was starting out, I dreamt of being Vonnegut for at least three reasons. First, Slaughterhouse Five is one of the most important books about WWII and life after WWII that is accessible to people ages twelve to eighty. Second, Palm Sunday (his first book of essays) helped me understand the relationship between conscience and literary or rhetorical style. Vonnegut, for me, I'd say is all about conscience expressed on the page. Third, and most important, Vonnegut was a writer by sheer force of effort and sheer force of will; he was an engineer by training, not an English major; he was a soldier, not a poet. But he was a writer.

E: Did I mention to you that I interviewed Vonnegut for an article once? I was a Vonnegut fan when young. Here's the short tribute piece I wrote about Vonnegut shortly after he died.

DB: In the same way that I love Vonnegut, I admire Tim O'Brien. The Things They Carried changed how I teach literature. But I've never fallen for his later work. In that same vein, Art Spiegelman's Maus changed how I teach visual communication.

But the biggest impact on students today? To be a writer, for so many young students, today, is to walk in the shadow of Hunter S. Thompson and William S. Burroughs. I admire them both, but I have mixed feelings about their legacies as "writers to emulate," or examples of the writing life. What do you think, Ed?

E: Regarding Hunter S. Thompson and Burroughs?

I come from the "belles lettres" school of thinking as regards writing. It’s the writing, not the lifestyle that matters most. Hunter Thompson became a pop icon of anti-establishment, but is that the embodiment of what a writer should be? If I recall correctly his first major story on the Kentucky Derby was just a mish mash of notes and not even a prepared manuscript. The editor of Esquire who gave him the assignment was going to print and needed the story but Thompson had done little but party. The editor asked for the scribblings and they were purportedly published as is. (I say purportedly because an Esquire editor famously altered even Raymond Carver’s writings around that time.) Any other editor would have called it rubbish but they celebrated it, printed it and donned Thompson a genius. Proof that the king had no clothes on.

I’d be curious to know how much of the interest in Thompson is due to his writings and how much due to the movies about him. And what does this say about being a role model for young writers?

What I’m saying is that it perpetuates the erroneous notion that to be a great artist (writer, musician, etc) one has to behave insanely. Burroughs and Thompson were one-percenters as regards over-the-top lifestyle. I would argue that it’s possible to write well and live a “normal” life… 

What’s your take on how the Internet has changed publishing?

DB: The Internet has made it possible for more people to be writers but for fewer of them to be paid for it.

The Internet has made it easier for writers to reach audiences, including marketing their own work, and I think, maybe, as a result, some authors become the product for sale.

Two of my favorite regional authors are Roy C. Booth and Aaron Brown. Both maintain blogs and Facebook pages. So when I buy their latest works, I'm extending my relationship with them as much as I am buying a product. Surely the same might be true of readers of Ennyman's Territory?

E: I certainly hope so. New topic... What do you mean by "the new rhetoric"? In what way is the new rhetoric different from the old rhetoric?

DB: When we talk about the Old Rhetoric, or when we talk about rhetoric in popular terms, we tend to talk about the ways that persuasive figures manipulate people. We think of emperors addressing their people ("Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears") or presidential candidates addressing their voters. We think about demagogues misleading the people to enter into power -- whether the power of politics or the power of the market (old school advertising set out to manipulate consumers the way politicians set out to control voters).

When we talk about the New Rhetoric, we're talking about the way that our society has the technologies, the social structures and increasingly the will to turn monologue into dialogue. As a teacher, that's the condition I foster, the skills I teach and the social change I want to enable.

E: Are there any universal truths about writing that you try to personally convey to your writing students?

DB: There are no universal truths for successful writing. Writing is, for me as a writer and in my classes, a local act, constrained by local forces. Each act of writing requires the writer to pull out the barometer to get the air pressure, the thermometer for temperature, the calendar, the compass for bearing, the map with protractors for location, the Farmer's Almanac for info on this date, historically, and the Ouija board for just a tiny peak into the future. Anytime any part of those writing conditions change, the strategies you'll use as a writer will change with them.

We are lucky to live in a place where writing is taught so well by so many: Heather Bastian at Scholastica, Jamie White-Farnham at UWS, John Hatcher, Chris Julin, Rachel Wolford and Craig Stroupe at UMD. The teaching of professional writers is part of the culture and climate of Duluth Higher Ed. And it's part of the climate of the town. I work with the Arrowhead Regional Arts Council, who regularly fund work by established and up & coming writers, and who teach young writers and artists the grant-writing process. And every year, dozens of college students learn from professionals like you, Ed, in internships.

E: Thank you, David, for your thoughts and insights. Let's keep the dialogue going.