by Bernard Renaud

Created on: December 28, 2008   Last Updated: December 29, 2009

     I disagree with the notion thats arguments should appeal to the emotions ,emotions are irrational. An argument should appeal to the rationality of human thought and not to emotions that could and in all likelihood would evoke an irrational response some what like salvation rather than a thoughtful and somewhat hesitant reply to what is a rationally constructed argument. Emotions should never figure in the construction of an argument.

     The cloudiness of emotional thought can lead only to the cloudiness of judgement. What might be a reaction to anargument whose methodology is to evoke an emotional response.Would the reader agree with the argument simple because of the argument's intellectual content or would the reader's react to the content in much the same manner a persons reacts to theatrical play,laughing when a comically line was spoken or experiencing a sense of dark forebode brought about by a dramatic moment. An argument whose methodology is to stir the emotions of the reader might be nothing more than a train wreck waiting to happen.

    Rationality should be the hall mark of any argument.Constructed on a foundation of rational thought, an argument so done can lead only to conclusions brought about by clear thinking. An argument built on an emotional foundation is an argument built built on quick sand.

    The approach that would build a solid foundation for any argument is one whose pillars stand on rational thought.A reader should not be moved by emotions but he or she or something in between should read any argument with one goal in mind;the search for weakness, for loop holes that would,if revealed,weaken the argument or undermined the pillars on which the writer had used in formulating their argument.

    If there were any emotional response to a writer"s work it should be one that drives the reader to think critically.Only a response that evokes critical thought would lead to clear conclusions. No mercy should be shown on the part of the reader in their search for loop,for holes that would,in effect, undermine the very core of a writer's argument. He or she should read the work with only one intention in mind to replace,through critical thought,the ground on which the work is built with quick sand.Emotional responses should never figure in the formulations of argument .Only than can it be said that an argument has value.

Learn more about this author, Bernard Renaud.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.