Ethos Pathos And Logos Essay

Immigration is a complex and multifaceted issue that faces the US. In his film, Sin Nombre (2009), director Cary Fukunaga aims to juxtaposition the issue of immigration with the issue of gang violence in Mexico, and show the difficulties immigrants face by giving his audience an insider’s perspective into the experience of immigrating to the United States from Honduras. He does this through a variety of characters; most notably Willie and Sayra. Fukunaga did extensive research on life in the Mara Salvatrucha gang and the process of immigrating to America, in order to make his film realistic and authentic. The result is a movie that not only shows immigration in a way that evokes empathy and enforces the humanity of immigrants in the viewer’s mind, but also gives the viewer a look into the realities of being in a gang. Through the use of strong characters, powerful dialogue and vivid imagery, Fukunaga uses pathos to put a human face to the issue of immigration, logos to inform and give his audience context about the issues the film addresses, and ethos to establish his credibility and make the film believable.

as the most effective form of persuasion. It is evident that logos best represents how an audience should be convinced, as seen in Amusing Ourselves to Death.

     Persuasion through lies is another way Gorgias says Logos can be used. He says that if everyone remembered everything in the past, knowledge of the present, and

This is an example of Logos because, “In this task of adjustment, discipline had to solve a number of problems for which the old economy of power was not sufficiently equipped. It could reduce the inefficiency of mass phenomena: reduce what, in a multiplicity, make it much less manageable than unity....” (Foucault, 2012, p. 208). He talks about the watch tower in a prison and they noticed when people are being watched from the watchtower, people change their behavior.

Ethos, pathos, and logos are all devices that Barbara Ehrenreich effectively uses throughout her novel Nickel and Dimed to prove that America needs to address the commonly overlooked issue of poverty within every community. It is important that she uses all three devices because they help support her argument by increasing her credibility, connecting to the readers’ emotions, and appealing to their sense of logic. The combination of these devices puts a sense of urgency on the problem Ehrenreich is addressing and therefore creates an effective argument.

He first appeals to logos in the first paragraph when giving his reasons for not offering details about his escape. My reasons for pursuing this course may be understood from this: First, were I to give a minute statement of all the facts, it is

The second rhetorical appeal the author uses is logos. He states “you just have to have entered the country illegally before the age of 16” and “all that’s actually required is that the dreamer enroll in a high school course or an ‘alternative’”. This information that he provides reveals the misconceptions many Americans have about who the dreamers are and what they represent and the fact that it didn’t take much for illegal immigrants to become dreamers. In support of his statement about the immigrants taking jobs he backs it up by providing the median hourly wage of dreamers. In doing this he ties in his pathos with logos, an effective way to generate an appeal.

With his position established in the reader’s minds, he proceeds to highlight the logic of his opinions and actions using logos.

“Heraclitus of Ephesus was the first philosopher we know of to give logos a philosophical or theological interpretation.” From the sixth century, Heraclitus understands logos as an eternal principle which gives order to the universe.

What Heraclitus can agree with the Milesians on, is that everything is in flux. The Milesians explained the world and its phenomena as to how everything came from the original stuff, such as Thales' water or Anaximenes' air. Heraclitus follows this pattern of explanation when he refers to the world as "an everliving fire". Fire is constantly changing and so is every other stuff. One thing is transformed into another in what is a cycle of changes. What is constant is not some stuff but the overall process of change itself. There is a constant law of transformations, which can probably be identified with Logos

Heraclitus philosophized the idea of unity. Concepts such as logs, fire and opposites are one; the relations to all three is what this paper will clarify. Logos then is the concept of universal, as all things being one. These things, or rather elements such as fire exhibit a constant change governed by reality. Opposites comes into play as being a system of balance and exchange between reality. It is then understood that Heraclitus understood realty as an ongoing existence between all things and thus are one.

When looking at pre-Socratic philosophers, Heraclitus stands out among the crowd. Known for his obscure and highly confusing way of thinking, Heraclitus bashed many other philosophers and historians of his time, even calling Homer ignorant, mainly because he believed that they failed to recognize the unity between experiences. He believed that in observation was necessary in the search for knowledge, but it is necessary to go beyond the observation presented. The basis of Heraclitus’ philosophy is based on what he called “logos”. He believed that there is a rational structure that controls the universe, and that this structure is the origin that everything arose out of. Logos was for Heraclitus “the mind of God”, because it is a rational force within nature, and instead of being a supernatural force, it is entirely natural.

The thought of the early Greeks demonstrates the overall balance of chaos and cosmos in our universe. This is expressed with many of the Pre-Socratic philosophers. When viewing the early Greeks, we can see many different expressions of chaos and cosmos in the universe. These views, or logos, range from terrible evils, such as Nyx’s tilting from cosmos to chaos in Hesiod’s world view, to greater goods, such as Anaximander’s argument of natural order. This is not to say that they are complete in the idea of rationalism, but together, they can create a stronger standing of the balance in the universe.

He basically uses ‘Logos’ in terms of expressing the concept of unification within nature. (Frankfort, 1946, p. 381) He uses a systematic and rational approach to portray his ideas of the cosmos. However, Heraclitus does not use ‘Logos’ as the material of which created the cosmos, but rather as the source of all things. In other words, Heraclitus concentrated on the material origins of the cosmos. And with that, he encouraged the concept of nature, and its constant change and movement. On the other hand, Heraclitus had also established a significant material source, known as ‘fire’. He uses this material not as an element of which created the cosmos, but as character of change. The use of ‘fire’ was seen as a sign of ‘Logos’, with that, it promoted a factor of an infinite cosmos (with no beginning and ending) as well as that all things are derived from the inevitable change and transformation of fire. Heraclitus also relates to Anaximanders’ flux of opposites, by creating his own ideologies on general tension between opposites of all sorts. He refers to this tension as the ‘Harmonia’. Heraclitus refers to such structures of tension as measures, whereby these measures create the possibility of intelligibility. (Frankfort, 1946, p. 382) “Fire lives in the death of air and air lives in the death of fire;

Heraclitus’ central philosophy concerns itself with paradoxical relationships that act in accordance with one another to form the nature of the cosmos. The logos’, as Heraclitus understands it to be, refers to both the “divine law of the cosmos” through which all relationships within nature are governed by and man’s quest to understand and adopt the logos as a way of living (Reeve & Miller, 9). The term itself has a number of definitions such as, “law”, “account”, and “reason”, all of which give different meanings when framing the idea of the logos within Heraclitus’ interpretation of the cosmos. Although Heraclitus believes that the “logos is common” and therefore should be a concept that individuals should constantly strive to understand and adopt; he goes on to explain that the reason for mankind’s struggle to understand the logos is a result of individuals choosing to “live as if they had their own private understanding” of the logos and its relation to the cosmos (Reeve & Miller, 10). This private understanding of the logos held by humanity can be attributed to our weak senses which prevents us from grasping the logos and as a result “are bad witnesses [to those who have barbarian souls]” (Reeve & Miller 10). Regarding the “barbarian soul”, aside from its classic historical meaning, most likely points towards those considered to be uncivilized. This characteristic of being uncivilized serves as the barrier between not understanding and understanding the logos. Those