where we write it

Ethos Connot Be Good or Does Not Exist

Intro:

There is only one physical principle that humanity explicitly works with in communication which is for humans to be equal and treat each other fairly.  The origin of that principle could have developed evolutionarily along the time to maximize the average possibility of each human’s survival.   However, interaction between humans is proved to exclude that principle.   That interaction can be present as the hidden interest in rhetoric communications done through ethos.

Communication is sending receivable information, and information is existence.

Beings interact with each other with objectivity and subjectivity.

Objectivity holds tangible information that can be communicated through a corresponding level of logos or pathos.

Subjectivity holds intangible information that can be communicated through a corresponding level of ethos.

Thesis:

Ethos cannot be used to produce better results to the environment when used to amplify pathos or logos.

Ethos cannot exist and be good simultaneously.

Explanation:

If ethos is used through logos, then logos can determine if the purpose was good or bad it gives  values to equality and fairness; using logos not ethos anymore.

Logos can more easily separate itself from ethos than pathos can.

When ethos is used through pathos, it gives misrepresentation in information and deception in persuasion in the same time.  That use of ethos violates equality and is not fair to be used.

Discussion:

An individual’s freedom and equality are not violated when the individual himself initiates an action due influences of pathos or logos. However, equality is violated when ethos is used in communication through them.

Analogous to the concept of entropy in energy; ethos stands to fill the gap of information in communication which cannot result in something better in reality.

The ethos definition requires a cost to apply an action.

The influence gained to enable doing any action in favor of ethos violates equality and thus is not fair to be used against the vulnerables.

A rhetoric communication through ethos cannot be productive in favors to both parties.

Gaining trust or tricking someone into good is not good. (harm/cost for receiver)

Conclusion:

There cannot exist a credibility of communicator in logos, while its existence causes injustice in pathos.  Ethos use in communication carries  a cost along shifting an individual perspective axis of credibility for the communication of any type of information.

Favoring to be happy than right is different from favoring to have a dialectic understanding of something.

The first one is a lie while the later may be valueless.   The first use is unfair,  the second is useless (displays selfishness and shallowness in my opinion… (e.g.:  I like red more than purple.)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s