Talk:Pathetic fallacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is also known as an "intentional stance," a term coined by the philopher Daniel Dennett. See http://www.psych.ualberta.ca/~mike/Pearl_Street/Dictionary/contents/I/intentional_stance.html . Also, there is no link to Anthropomorphism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism) even though it links here. Nick

Contents

[edit] Bad example

The article has "The Israeli people owe it to the Palestinian people" as an example of a pathetic fallacy. No, bad example. If "Israel" had been used instead of "Israeli people" then maybe. But a people can have and often does have a distinguishable (average) intentional stance, or feeling on an issue. Example removed. Paul Beardsell 03:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, brewhaha@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca has set a bad example by posting un unannounced edit. As fallacy implies incorrectness, I added a strike section to the first sentence of a paragraph and provided a rule for breaking the rule. I think it leads into the paragraph about old Brittanicas quite nicely. 216.234.170.103 07:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable para

The pathetic fallacy with groups of people may overlap with the group attribution error: assuming most group behavior such as that of a disparate body such as a country is mostly situational, and it is difficult for such an entity to have any coherent disposition.

The above para suffers from the pathetic fallacy. A country does not have "group behaviour": A country's people (sometimes) has that. And, once again, a group can have a joint feeling (=pathos). Para removed from article.

Paul Beardsell 04:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What does "coincide" mean here?

I find this without clear meaning: Other literary uses for pathetic fallacy would be having a certain character exclaim a fact or opinion which coincides in some way to that character, yet they are unaware of it. And when it is explained to me I think I may fail to see how it is an example of a pathetic fallacy? Paul Beardsell 04:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I think what the author fails to realize here is that all the examples here are metaphorical. Even the title itself is POV. Critical 02:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About Users Critical and CStar

For the record, the user Critical ( talk, contributions), who slapped the "disputed NPoV" sticker on this page, has made his or her first edits tonight (or today) and within less than two hours has attacked eight articles for PoV, including (ironically given the CStar example given on the Logical fallacy talk page), Physical law. These were the only "edits" (plus weak justifications on talk pages in the same vein as this one). I don't think the PoV claim has merit. We may ask if this series of attacks is to be taken seriously.

For the following reasons I am thinking that these pages has been the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll and the PoV sticker should be removed sooner rather than later, if not immediately. We may note that CStar ( talk, contributions) after making edits, paused during the period user Critical made edits, and then CStar took up responding to these edits after the series of user Critical edits ends, as if there is only one user involved, and the user logged out, changed cookies and logged back in. Further, user CStar left a note on Charles Matthew's talk page, Chalst's talk page, and Angela's talk page pointing to a supposed PoV accusation placed on the Logical argument page, when in fact no such sticker has been placed. Perhaps the irony regarding the Physical law page is not so ironic. Hu 05:18, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)


I have responded to this on the logical fallacy talk page, as well as on the pages of the above mentioned users. It does appear that these pages were as Hu suggests the victim of a tiresome semi-sophisticated troll. But I wasn't the perpetrator. This suggestion appears to have been an honest mistake, I consider the matter closed, and it appears that Hu does as well. CSTAR 01:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Isn't this...

"Other literary uses for pathetic fallacy would be having a certain character exclaim a fact or opinion which coincides in some way to that character, yet they are unaware of it." called foreshadowing? --Ben 10:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Possibly. I am going to delete it - my suggestion that I would do so was made many weeks ago and no one has objected. What say you? Paul Beardsell 11:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't even notice your comment up there :P. I agree. If someone thinks it is pathetic fallacy they should give a good reason and then change it back, I personally don't see how that works with the definition of treating the inanimate as if it had emotions.--Ben 01:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On a sidenote could someone add a good remark about pathetic fallacy and the Greek "pathos?" I was expecting to see that here, it's in a lot of other definitions I've found. (though Wiki has a pretty meager def'n of pathos it seems)--Ben 01:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't this also refer to, in literature, when the weather reflects the mood of the scene?

QUESTION: I heard a few years ago that pathetic fallacy is the short form (although it's displaced it now) of saying sympathetic fallacy. I asked my brother and his english prof said the same thing although I don't know what the general opinion is on it. I wanted to check in here before adding to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.35.71 (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fallacy???

This is not a logical fallacy, this is the literary device of personification. -Branddobbe 09:19, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Why cannot one thing be a member of two categories? But what is the "this" to which you refer? Paul Beardsell 13:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"This" is the idea of a pathetic fallacy. What evidence is there that anyone uses this as an argument or in attempts at logical arguing or deduction? No one does this. -Branddobbe 11:34, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

I must agree with Branddobbe on this. Ruskin's premier example is to tear into the "fallacy" committed by...Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a poem about a flower?! This appears to have little to do with logical fallacy. Rather, Ruskin is engaged in literary criticism. If pathetic fallacy is in fact a logical fallacy, let's see some evidence, e.g. a case where personification and the like are used erroneously in logical argument or probability, etc., as specified in logical fallacy.
Significantly, Ruskin starts his essay with the remarkable statement that "German dulness, and English affectation, have of late much multiplied among us the use of two of the most objectionable words...". If that kind of rhetoric is not a precise example of exactly what is railing against, then it seems to me a rather close pass.
It also seems to me that even as literary criticism, to attach the word pathetic is simply pejorative. --Munge 06:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing fallacious about most of the examples given. One has to personify because most languages make it much more difficult to speak about inanimate objects than about people. The person saying "the moving object wants to keep going" or "the car refuses to start" is perfectly aware that cars and moving objects have no feelings or moods, but it's linguistically much more convenient to speak as if they had. Taw 10:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
The term "pathetic" in this sense is not pejorative. Pathetic fallacy (PF) is not a "fallacy which is pathetic", but "a fallacy pertaining to pathos". Fowler's Modern English Usage, American Heritage Dictionary online and Merriam-Webster Online all make distinction between PF and personification; in fact the neither of the entries refers to the other. PF is defined as attributing human emotion to inanimate objects or to nature; examples given are "callously indifferent the sea may seem.." (Fowler); "angry clouds; a cruel wind" (American Hertiage); "the cruel sea" (Merriam-Webster). Personification, however, is defined as inanimate objects or abstractions being endowed with human qualities or represented as possessing human form (synonym given as prosopopeia); or as an artistic representation of an abstract quality or idea as a person (like the Grim Reaper as death, or Uncle Sam as the United States). Or have I got the wrong end of the stick, here? SigPig 2 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
I agree with Munge. No one is actually arguing that the car won't start because it is sentient and chooses not to when they say, "Ah, it is no good. That car just refuses to start!" Since no one is making such an argument, there is no fallacy. -- Kjkolb 15:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it looks like a perjorative term - and that it is close to Personification - but for better or worse it's the term Ruskin came up with, and it can't be disposed of. Off to try out some edits which will might help explain this to readers of the article. Sills bend 04:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Ruskin certainly used the word perjoratively. In the sense that employing it made for bad or weak poetry. That is works that employ the pathetic fallacy, such as Thanatopsis by Bryant, are misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.136.19 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] major rewrite - hope nobody's offended.

The article was substantially incorrect. I have rewritten it to conform with the sources cited at the bottom of the current article. I felt pretty bad deleting so much stuff, but unfortunately it was in the wrong place. The material about evolution and psychology could go into a different article, maybe? Sills bend 05:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[1]: Definitely. I just added a digression into allegory, and even that required ignoring "dead". Earlier, I changed the note about pathos to English (empathy) and moved it closer to the lead. 216.234.170.74 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some physics

I quote: "In explaining the greenhouse effect, it is often said that "radiation is trapped", as if radiation was a living animal that can be confined, and escapes if not confined. In reality, radiation is absorbed by the earth and the energy exists as heat, which causes higher blackbody radiation (with a different spectrum)."

Frankly, this bugs me. Saying "radiation is trapped" in no way, no how, implies that radiation is an animal! And it in fact makes perfect sense. If there was no atmosphere, all the radiation would escape! With an atmosphere some is trapped. With higher concentrations of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, even more heat is trapped.

Also, "In reality, radiation is absorbed by the earth and the energy exists as heat, which causes higher blackbody radiation (with a different spectrum)." doesn't make any sense. It almost does, but doesn't succeed.

I removed the troublesome paragraph. Remember the Wikipedia credo: Be Bold! Make whatever changes you feel are necessary to improve the article, consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Don't be afraid to ruffle a few feathers in doing so. (also remember to sign your edits on discussion pages!) Gregmg 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation request

I removed the citation request that followed this text: For example, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica abounds in use of the pathetic fallacy even though it is ostensibly a purely factual work. Citations are not generally needed for widely accepted facts. Although I'm certainly no literary expert, I've read a number of sources that discuss the frequent use of the pathetic fallacy in the 1911 Britannica. I don't think anyone would argue that the 1911 Britannica was a factual work. Thus, both points seem to be widely accepted facts that don't require a citation. Gregmg 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another bad example

I removed a paragraph that used the example radiation is trapped. At the very least, this isn't the best example. It might not even be an example at all. All other examples I've seen of this literary device employ human emotions or actions. Inanimate objects can become trapped. This paragraph likely added more confusion than clarity, so I removed it. Gregmg 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting definitions

The following is the definition from Literary techniques:

Pathetic fallacy is the reflection of the mood of a character (usually the protagonist) in the weather. A good example is the storm in William Shakespeare King Lear, which mirrors Lear's mental deterioration.

Which is what I always thought the pathetic fallacy meant; it's a shame this is not reflected at all in the current article. I think I see how to get to the above from Ruskin, for whom the PF is not just the fallacy of personification, but personification justifiable because the feelings are so intense that the author, hence reader, and (if appropriate) character have to some extent taken leave of their senses. PaddyLeahy 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no conflict, although the Literary techniques article could benefit from some clarification. The weather certainly has no mood. Mirroring the mood of the protagonist in the weather is simply the typical literary application and does not conflict with the definition provided here. Remember the Wikipedia credo... Be Bold! Make whatever changes you deem necessary. If you go too far others will modify your edits. Gregmg 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone has added "Pathetic fallacy is often the use of weather to effect the attitudes and impressions given from a piece of prose." which I guess is referring to the above - but I am not what it really is saying. -- Beardo 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is from Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Poetic practice of attributing human emotion or responses to nature, inanimate objects, or animals. The practice is a form of personification that is as old as poetry, in which it has always been common to find smiling or dancing flowers, angry or cruel winds, brooding mountains, moping owls, or happy larks. The term was coined by John Ruskin in Modern Painters (1843–60). --Loodog 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IKEA commercial

I don't think the ikea commercial qualifies as pathetic fallacy. The swedish guy is specifically dismissing personification, and doesn't use any language that ascribes human traits to inanimate object. Saying the opposite of something only implies the thing itself if it is supposed to be ironic. I am going to delete the example.--66.102.196.40 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)