Kirk, Spock, & Bones

01.10.2005

I'm so happy w/ the little mimetic device I came up w/ for 105 today, that I thought I'd share. It's a way to think about the three types of rhetorical arguments outlined by Aristotle — ethos, pathos, and logos — by way of Star Trek.

Logos, of course, is related to Spock. He's (seemingly) immune to emotional arguments, and relies almost exclusively on purely logical/rational arguments.

Ethos is related most strongly to Dr. McCoy. He's not too fond of Spock's reliance on pure logic, but sees most issues along ethical/moral dimensions.

Pathos seems to be Captain Kirk's forté. He's the most emotional, passionate member of the crew, and tends to react on impulse, usually checked by Spock and/or Bones.

Since neither's the "bad guy" in the crew (they're the show's three main "heroes"), we can see that all three types of argumentation can be good (I, of course, much prefer the Spock variety). Either way, I like the little analogy as simplistically illustrating the three basic types of arguments in the discipline of rhetoric.

The sad news? When asked, only one of 55 students ever saw a Star Trek episode.

Posted by Miguel at 11:00 PM

Comments

55 out of how many students?

Also, this reminds of something that bugged me a while back. On Marco's weblog entry discussing the pros and cons of confidence, I used the term "cowboy ethos" several times. In response, you used "cowboy mythos".

I used ethos as meaning "the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution." While mythos is equally usable as meaning "MYTH; MYTHOLOGY; a pattern of beliefs expressing often symbolically the characteristic or prevalent attitudes in a group or culture." Both defs taken from Merriam-Webster.

I think the use of both terms is correct. Thus, while you refer to cowboy mythos as being some sort of symbolic expression of the prevalent attitude/characteristic of cowboy culture, my use of cowboy ethos as meaning the straightforwarded, shoot-at-the-hip type of characteristic for which cowboys are known, is also correct use.

You say mythos, I'll continue using ethos in that context. Unless we're discussing Aristotelian rhetorical arguments, when I say nothing at all.

Posted by: tom at January 11, 2005 01:04 AM

I'd 55 students in class that day; only one raised a hand when I asked if anyone'd ever seen Star Trek. There are 58 students currently enrolled in 105.

As to the ethos/mythos debate. I think you're right, for the most part. They do mean rather similar things. But the key difference is that mythos is derived (as you point out) "symbolically". There is a cowboy ethos — a set of character ethics, morals, principles associated w/ our idea of the "cowboy" in American political/social culture.

But there's also a cowboy mythos, which not only contains those ethics (the ethos component), but also presents them in symbolic ways. From the iconographic image of John Wayne on a horse w/ a signature hat, to the mythology surrounding the gunfight at the OK Corral, to the everyday symbolism of something like cowboy boots (remember the campaign billboards that read "boots or flip flops?" w/ pictures of cowboy boots).

Thus, we're both correct. And I agree that there's an ethos associated w/ "cowboys" in American popular culture, which expresses itself in the political culture as well. But I add that this ethos is (at least partially) fuelled by a mythos — built around a mythologized cowboy past that didn't exist quite as imagined — that feeds that ethos. And provide us w/ our "pantheon" of larger-than-life heroes.

Posted by: Miguel [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 11, 2005 01:19 AM