At the end of chapter four of Rhetoric, Aristotle writes, “These, then are the most important kinds of information a political speaker can possess. Let us now go back and state the premises from which he will have to argue in favour of adopting or rejecting measures regarding these and other matters.” According to Aristotle one of these premises is “will this make me happy?” In chapter five he states that happiness is the emotion behind what men choose and what they avoid. I read this as meaning that in order to persuade a man you must convince him that his happiness will increase.
Reading Aristotle’s point got me thinking about how logical and emotional appeals work together. Yes, happiness is an emotion, but it could be the end game of a logical appeal. For instance, a commercial shows a girl with a new bike smiling and laughing, her parents happily videotaping. The unstated logical argument is: girl has bike; she is happy; buying this bike will make you happy. This is an inductive argument, but it is also one that appeals to our desire to be happy.
As for Aristotle’s contention that happiness is the emotion behind what they choose and what they avoid—I don’t buy it. As a counterexample, a woman might be persuaded to a certain action if that action would decrease her own happiness but would increase her child’s happiness. I’d like to know what people think.
I think your example is a good one. Aristotle was writing (from what I can tell, anyway) from a pretty narrow point of view-- one man speaking in public to persuade other men. So for him to speak of happiness as though across the board, people always choose to make themselves happy, is inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteI suppose one could point out that parents frequently make their children unhappy in the short term-- like not buying them candy every time they go to the store-- for the sake of everyone's long-term happiness: the child will have fewer cavities, learn that they don't always get what they want, have less of an obesity problem, etc. I don't think Aristotle really addresses a broad range of situations.
I liked your post, I thought you did a good job of placing the particular emotions Aristotle is speaking about within a larger framework. For example you write that "Reading Aristotle’s point got me thinking about how logical and emotional appeals work together. Yes, happiness is an emotion, but it could be the end game of a logical appeal." I think this is Aristotle's point exactly. Happiness or Eudaimonia is the object or telos we strive towards in all of our actions. We use logical and emotional appeals not just based on whims but because they are meant to bring about something beneficial.
ReplyDeleteYour example about the distinction between short term and long term I think also illustrates his constant appeal to moderation as key to living the good life. I don't think he's talking about happiness in the abstract as purely bodily pleasure, but is more concerned with it as a structuring principle of life. That happiness is defined in relation to the good, so giving up something for the child would also make that mother feel like a good mother, and overall make her feel better.
I definitely agree with you on how emotions and logic work together. Advertisers will use this strategy, as in your example, to get consumers to buy a certain product. Ad agencies seem to follow Aristotle's view on the power of emotions to persuade an audience. Its funny though that a lot of the times consumers do not recognize that they have fallen into this trap.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with Aristotle's view of happiness being what you choose or avoid. If we were to always ask ourselves "will this make me happy?" we would probably be limited to very few actions. I am not happy when I do homework, but that doesn't mean I just stop doing it. I would be even unhappier if I did this because I would get a zero as a grade. Sometimes you must sacrifice your happiness, in order to get where you want to be, ex. not going out in order to study for a test.
Hey Sophist. You've made a great point about logical and emotional appeals being interwoven. I think that virtually every argument has components of both. You give the example of the television commercial showing a young girl happily riding her new bike, and note that the hidden logical argument is that the parents should buy the bike. It goes the opposite way too, though. I can make an argument which seems largely logical, like "the stock market is about to crash, so we should suspend trading to halt the collapse". It seems to be rather cut-and-dried, but as you read it, your heartstrings are being pulled upon by all your experiences of hardship. Those who suffered through the Great Depression would respond stronger to this "logical" appeal. The most clever politicians are able to appeal to audiences by presenting their arguments as logical, when they're really playing on the constituency's values.
ReplyDeleteI noticed, also, that your material comes from Book 1 of "Rhetoric" as opposed to Book 2. Its great to see students reading parts of the book that haven't been assigned, in order to give better context to the parts that we're dealing with.
I understand your point, but Aristotle expands on this more in his writings on ethics. In it's expanded version, it's a bit more convincing. If I remember correctly, Aristotle thinks that when you break down everything a person does, you eventually get to the fact that they thought it would make them happy. For example: I go to college. Why? Because I want to be a psychologist. Why? Well, I have to do something, and psychology seems like a good choice since it will allow me to research, which I like. Why? Because I like to learn. Why? It makes me happy. Alright, that was a pretty lame example, but you see what I mean. So, in your example of the woman and child, Aristotle might say that it made the woman happy to make her child happy, or fulfill her duty as a mother, or something of the sort.
ReplyDeleteI like the first line in part 5 of book 1. "it may be said that every individual man and all men in commona im at a certain end which determines what they choose and what they avoid." It's exactly what you said but I agree on the fact that this definition is pretty narrow and identifies a certain group, but not the majority. Following your example, avoiding things can not always be the path to happiness. Sometimes avoiding things at the present opens up something in the future that will bring happiness.
ReplyDeleteHere is a really odd example, but can I use the decline in price of things over time? I'm not sure if this is to over the top, but on pretty much everything if you hold back you urge to buy them when they come out first day you will surely get a better price, producing a feeling of envy towards others that have the thing you want, but in the end you get it for cheaper and have extra money to buy extras with it, resulting in happiness??
Don't know if this makes sense, but it seemed an extreme example.
I think that the concept of happiness being an underlying motive for everyone is more or less spot on. Humans as a species have moved past the original, simple objective of life in a biological sense (survive long enough to create offspring to pass on your genes), and thus happiness in the moment due to a lack of any real threat to survival becomes the next desire for most people.
ReplyDeleteAnd really, consider your counterpoint to Aristotle's argument - you say that a person may do something that decreases their happiness to make their child happier, but most parents would argue that they do that because making their child happy makes them happier than simply holding onto whatever it is that they were giving up.
I like what Elphie wrote. Everything when broken down is about trying to be happy.
ReplyDeleteEconomics supports this. Economists believe that the objective of the rationale consumers is to maximize utility (or satisfaction). To do this, the consumer makes choices about how to allocate resources (time, money, goods, etc.). Often times making choices results in a tradeoff.
Let's look at G-man's example. Buying the toy for the child MUST increase the mother's utility; if it didn't, the laws of economics say that the mother wouldn't buy the toy. The mother is probably getting utility by being a good mother and seeing her child happy.
And Donah’s example: doing homework today is about long-term utility. Are you going to be happier graduating UT with a degree because you did your homework, or not doing your homework?
Some people hit on this in there comments above, so I will not try to beat a dead horse, but I think some of the meaning of the emotion Aristotle is defining as "happiness" is lost in translation. He is actually defining "eudaimonia", which according to a few online translators can be more accurately described as "well being" or "virtue", much like the Greek term "arete". Taking this into account, I think both examples you give fall right in line with what Aristotle is saying. So to me it seems the question he poses isn't "will this make me happy?", it is "is this what is best for me?".
ReplyDeleteThat being said I also think Aristotle idealizes the "good man" to the detriment of his argument, as do most ancient authors. They seemed to be characterizing the most virtuous person who always chooses what is best for them. That doesn't really mesh with a contemporary audience since people make mistakes all the time. What is confusing to me is that making bad decisions is not a newly developed social phenomenon, so I chalk that discrepancy up to differing social customs between modern times and classical Athens.