• Ole Marius Nesset
    Hello, everyone.

    I've recently started on my bachelor's degree in philosophy, and this is my first year at a university. Academia is therefore new to me, and I am trying to wrap my head around an article on how emotions are arguable in argumentation theory. We will be writing an analysis of this article, and it will be submitted part by part throughout the semester, and we will be starting with a summary.
    Now, whether or not you agree with the author, I would love to hear your inputs on how his arguments may / may not be fallacious, true or incorrect, because as this is an analysis, I am to point out the structure of arguments, and how / if they are relevant, but if you could, let your arguments / counterarguments be in their own paragraph and just try to highlight what the author is trying to articulate.

    Because firstly I am going to write a summary of the whole thing, before diving into the analysis of the author's arguments. This comes later, because I need to understand if I have myself grasped the author's thesis in the first place; being a beginner at this actually have troubles understanding what he is saying. And quite honestly, I think the same can be said for my lecturer, as when I asked him he really didn't address my question, (he is an older man and our native language isn't English, yet I do not at all doubt his competence as he is a good lecturer) he was pointing out the structure of my text, which I appreciate, but I will fix that later - first I need to understand if what I am writing is even true or not. My whole class is having a hard time with this one, and there seems to be many interpretations.

    So I have therefore decided to come to this sub for some inputs. I will be posting the link to the article and below I have pasted what I have written thus far. It is not near finished yet, and there are probably grammatical errors or spellings which I would appreciate corrected. (As I've said, English is not my native language). If you could keep it as comprehensible as possible that would be great - as said, I am new to academic jargon and terminologies. Thank you all in advance, I want you to know that I truly appreciate this forum and the people who are active here.

    TL;DR: What point is the author trying to make, and have I understood it?
    Link to article: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TSAvlGFHUg7ys2V9D9KnEnDK0jp9qju-/view?usp=sharing

    This is what I have written thus far;

    "In this analysis, we will consider Raphaël Micheli’s hypothesis that by drawing parallels with modern psychology and other philosophical theories, we can understand emotions to be at the basis of an argument’s core by deciphering how we cognitively process a statement depending on the listener’s evaluative mental state. This supports the proposition that emotional appeals serve not only to enhance the persuasiveness of an argument, but that a speaker may present propositions or claims with the intention of legitimizing an emotion and the reasons of why they should or should not be felt; the emotion itself is rendered to be arguable and something to be considered in argumentation theory.
    The author presents an alternate perspective that stands in contrast with the conventional view that emotions are not only objects of appeal that strengthen the validity of an argument, but rather that the emotion itself functions as a cognitive antecedent in which both of the rhetorical modes of persuasion, pathos and logos, are ultimately intertwined, or reduced to one another.

    When one presents an argument, for example why something is “dangerous” we ultimately use pathos as a means of appealing to the audience’s emotions as to argue why the argument has merit. In this case, pathos is reduced to logos because reason and logic is the cognitive antecedent which results in the audience having a particular emotion triggered. The listener's emotions and opinions alike can be altered with argumentation. One can thusly view rhetorical means of persuasion as integrated in the premises to support the argument’s conclusion, rendering emotions themselves to be, as described by the author, objects of argumentative constructions. If this is the case, then emotions themselves are arguable in their own sense............ *tbc* "
  • intrapersona
    sounds like standard first year stuff. I remember learning a lot about pathos and related fallacies. Your writing is spot on too. This kind of material isnt that abstract, in fact its rather black and white and pertains to mostly concrete processes (like dispositions of argument). The real hard stuff is abstract concepts, usually multitudenaly layered in terms of interpretation. all the best
  • Caldwell
    We would need to log in to read the article.
  • Wayfarer
    you write well. Keep going.
  • Ole Marius Nesset
    Hmm, that is interesting, because I am not logged in. What about this link?


    I appreciate your words, I will.
  • Baden

    Only the abstract is available. It might that you have automatic access through your university system. The rest of us don't though.
  • Ole Marius Nesset
    Thanks for letting me know, I've uploaded it to Google drive.
    [Mod edit: Please PM me for link].
  • Baden

    OK, thanks, but with respect to issues of copyright, it's probably better to offer that link by PM, so I've edited your post to reflect that.
  • Jake
    've recently started on my bachelor's degree in philosophyOle Marius Nesset


    Before you and everyone else dives in to the details of various arguments etc, it might be wise to first make the case for why you are seeking a BA in philosophy. You'd don't need to justify the goal to us of course, but how about writing an article to yourself laying out the arguments for why you are seeking this degree?

    Ideally, you would have been required to write such an article already in order to gain admittance to the philosophy department. If that wasn't the case, that might be cause for some caution.
  • Ole Marius Nesset
    With all due respect, I don't understand why this is the case. I am curious as to why would I need to make such a case, as I don't see how that is relevant at all to my question. Do you mean something synonymous with a statement of purpose? Is this a standard procedure in order to post on this forum as some sort of rite of passage?

    I've always known why I've wanted a BA in Philosophy. In fact, I intend to aim even higher than that. Questions regarding the nature of consciousness, reality, time, ethics and the nature of the self have always fascinated and intrigued me. I left my previous job for this, and I am yet a young man with motivations and goals. Beyond that, I honestly cannot understand why I'd need to elaborate further. Edit: I hope I don't come across as passive-aggressive, for that is truly not my intention.
  • Jake
    Hi Ole,

    With all due respect, I don't understand why this is the case. I am curious as to why would I need to make such a case, as I don't see how that is relevant at all to my question.Ole Marius Nesset

    Well, if you couldn't make a case as to why you should pursue a degree in philosophy that would remove the need for question, achieving relevance that way.

    If the professors didn't require you to make a written case as to why you should join their program, that might give you reason to question whether you have chose the right philosophy department, which if not, might also remove the need for the question.

    You don't need to elaborate further to me, or to us, or to anybody else except... Yourself. You haven't made a convincing, or even interesting, case here as to why you should seek a philosophy degree, but it may very well be that you could make a good case if you wished to. You don't seem to feel need to make that case, which as a person going in to the case making business could possibly be problematic.

    My case is that I'm attempting to leap over a near infinite number of details and reach for the bottom line. Only you can be the judge of whether such an effort is worthwhile to you.

    In any case, good luck to you!
  • Jake
    To be hopefully more helpful....

    If you don't yet know about the following site it may prove useful to you. It's a group blog of philosophy academics and students.

Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.