Nussbaum and Walker: Reasoning with Katharsis.

Nussbaum and Walker both make a similar argument towards Aristotle's system of rhetoric -- emotions are intricately tied in with reason. However, they go about emphasizing emotion in different ways. Nussbaum argues that every emotion we have is centered on certain beliefs. Walker, on the other hand, argues the the emotional foundation precedes our reasoning. I'd like to explore more of Walker's ideas, especially what he says about emotional katharsis.

Walker begins his argument with an exposition on katharsis, first introducing it through its role in music. Katharsis, as Walker explains, is a kind of "purgation" or "purification"; when we hear music, we respond to it with some kind of emotional release. For example, in horror movies, we know that something bad is about to happen if we hear some kind of dissonance or tension in the music, and we have an automatic reaction anticipating something fearful.

Walker also gives us the analogy of medical katharsis, where some kind of pharmakon or remedy would cause medial katharsis, or a releasing of the bad "juices" in a sick person. However, emotional katharsis isn't a purging of negative emotions only -- it is simply a "forcing out" of certain emotions. In order to appeal to these pathé or emotions in a person, the rhetor uses the tool of rhetoric to "force out" these emotions.


Walker states his argument as such: basically all reasoning is pathetic reasoning, and rhetoric is meant to guide such reasoning by appealing to the emotions -- rhetoric is simply the pharmakon to cause emotional katharsis. He also says that this was not Aristotle's intention, who would have much rather preferred to have reason reign supreme over any of the emotions. Inevitably, however, emotions are our foundation of reasoning, our quickest and basest response to the things around us.


I thought that this was an interesting and new way to look at Aristotle's Rhetoric, or pathetic appeals at all. We generally have the modern view that emotions are irrational and should be discarded in our reasoning, but it makes sense that emotions are the foundation of our reasoning. Perhaps they are not always right or appropriate, but we respond in these physiological and psychological ways for a reason; perhaps our body and brain work faster than our consciousness. Before we can say, "Oh, there is a masked man standing next to me with a big knife... I think I should be scared," our body does the work for us with a knee-jerk reaction of fear and panic. The brain has already processed it: run for your life.


Rhetoric has such a bad rap as a manipulating and persuasive tool used by bad people to make the masses do what they want. People are right to be afraid: if an effective rhetor has the ability to raise up emotional katharsis in people, that rhetor can control an audience's base reactions. That is likely why Walker also talks about an ethical approach to this idea of emotional katharsis; the rhetor must be responsible with how he uses his pharmakon of rhetoric, just like a doctor must be responsible with how he administers medicine to his patients. This is perhaps a topic for another day. For now, I think that we can agree that emotion is intimately tied in with any type of reasoning or reaction that we have. Whether it is a good or bad thing, depends wholly on the situation and the rhetor.