Chapter 9: The Passions

In the early part of Hauser's chapter titled “The Passions,” he makes a statement that defines his argument concerning pathos. He exclaims that “all thinking engages emotional response.” It is with this as a basic foundation, that we are able to question the validity of both decision-making based on emotions as well as pathos as a means of successful rhetoric. Hauser makes it apparent that emotions are not “things.” This is to say that emotions themselves are part of a holistic response to an experience. Happiness, sadness, fear, grief, etc are not external to who we are proposes Hauser. He also states that feelings are not universal. Depending on a given situation, we all have different emotional responses. I think most immediately of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which evoked a range of emotions in Americans. While we may have experienced different experiences—sadness, anger, remorse, guilt, etc—it would seem that the attitude preceding the events seemed to be universal or at least that was what had been projected by our media. There was a general feeling of patriotism, and renewed energy. However, does the media play a role in designating a universal emotion? To this extent, is emotional appeal a manipulative tool? Americans saw immediately after the attacks an appeal by former President George W. Bush to Americans emotions. He addressed the anger—we are prepared to fight the (“evil-doers”) as well as the sadness (“we will never forget”). Even before individuals could make their own decisions and create their own emotional responses, there seemed to be rhetoric from a place of authority dictating that which we should feel. While this is an integral part of assessing the rhetorical situation (addressing it and then consequentially defining it for an audience) one has to wonder its level of morality. To what extent does this strategy—the defining of emotions for a particular audience—infringe on individuals rights to free-will and a personal decision-making process? It can be argued that above all else this process is manipulative.
A simple question to ask of this specific chapter—and Hauser seems to propose it in his summary—is whether or not “our feelings are appropriate in making wise decisions.” Especially in a western society that values the logical over emotional, it becomes important to question the perceived norm. To what extent does emotion, over intellect and ration, become the most important factor in making decisions? As Hauser states, all of our intellectual experiences are clouded with emotion. While our intellect and cognitive may come first (experience) what defines the situation is our emotional response. With this said, I would argue that emotional appeal is first and foremost what makes us human and unique. The rational, intellectual contrastingly is inherently exterior to what is uniquely personal. Is the emotional what makes us personal and unique and therefore provides even more validity to our arguments? Hauser says that if emotional appeals are coupled with logical arguments then “our emotions are likely to be appropriate responses, essential for considered action.” Does emotion by itself ever justify the decision making process? In what situation?