Rhetorical Happiness

“The Spoils of Happiness”, written by David Sosa of the New York Times, consists of a commentary on happiness: its attributes, and how to attain it. Digging deep into what causes happiness, Sosa concludes that happiness is not a state of mind, but rather depends on surrounding events. Sosa uses a sympathetic tone, intellectual diction, powerful rhetorical questions, emotional analogies and insightful allusions to establish a strong ethos, pathos and logos: ultimately increasing the believability and overall strength of his claim, happiness is not a state of mind.

Sosa begins his article with a historical example, based off an experiment done by Robert Nozick. Sosa describes this experiment as a machine that could give a person any experience he desires, by changing his own perception of reality. After immersing the reader in this radical scenario, Sosa ends sharply with his thesis for the article. By suddenly concluding his opening paragraph with his claim “Happiness is not a state of mind.”, the reader, still unaware of where the article is going, and feels inclined to read on, wishing to figure out reasons for incorporating the scenario described. Sosa’s initial use of this analogy plays as not only the base source for his argument, but as a subliminal device used to draw on ignorance of the reader about the subject matter. Sosa goes on to allude to things such as “The Matrix”, in order to better bring his claim down to the eyes of the reader. By contrasting the abstract experimental scenario, to something as simple and popular as “The Matrix”, Sosa is able to first, draw on the reader’s ignorance--establishing ethos--to later bring his argument to a more emotional level that contains things more familiar and personnel to the reader. By placing both of these allusions right at the beginning of the article, Sosa is able to depend heavily on early pathos and ethos in his claim, allowing him to get more transition into the logos required to prove his point.

Sosa begins his next paragraph with a strong, somewhat ambiguous question: “What is happiness?”. After establishing a strong ethos already at this point, Sosa uses newly introduced questions to get the reader thinking. By specially designing his questions to lean towards his opinion, Sosa allows the reader to draw similar conclusions based upon questions the reader can answer in his mind (rather than Sosa just explaining his hypothesis). The creative process incorporated by the reader in thinking up his own question-guided conclusion helps boost Sosa’s ethos and the argument’s pathos even more. The use of rhetorical questions allows the reader to feel as if he, himself thought up the conclusion, making the issue much more personnel to the reader when Sosa seems to agree. Likewise, Sosa goes on to use rhetorical questions as a way to put pressure on the reader to make up his mind. By planting three deep questions in a row, the reader feels pressure to have some sort of opinion formed. Sosa, after placing new pressure on the reader, immediately provides a common answer to the questions: one that parallels his claim. By first flustering the reader into pondering his own opinion then giving a common answer, Sosa plays on the minds of readers who are, at the time, undecided on the issue. By providing a logical answer right after stirring up a need for a decision, most readers tend to follow the “common” opinion: the one stated by Sosa. In turn, Sosa uses rhetorical questions to spark emotion in the reader, forcing him to make a conclusion about the issue; drawing on his previously established ethos, Sosa uses the rhetorical question to further increase the pathos of the issue.

As the article continues, Sosa begins to introduce analogies, furthering the logos of the argument by playing on the previously sharp increase in pathos and ethos. The reader, already feeling as if they are being taught by a superior, is again hit by a device that simplifies the claim, to better suit the readers inexperience in the subject. Sosa plays on the logic of his analogies, such as in a fire saving your neighbor or your pencil, but not both, to highlight the seemingly simplistic logic of his claim. Sosa goes on to relate the difference between pleasure and happiness by comparing it to the life of a drug addict. By using an analogy with such negative connotations, Sosa is able to play on the emotional and logical aspect of proving his point. Readers find it easier to see reasons to not act like a drug dealer than reasons to believe Sosa’s claim, yet by bringing the same logic into analogous terms, readers feel much more inclined to sympathize with the writer. However, this strategy of analogy would not have worked had Sosa not been able to effectively establish ethos prior to introducing the analogies. Sosa relies on his image to the reader in order to persuade the reader that his claim is, in essence, just as logical as any one of his analogies. Use of the analogy greatly furthers the arguments logos, along with a slight increase of pathos.

Furthermore, Sosa uses a sympathetic tone to better improve the audiences’ pathos towards the issue. Sosa draws on both the abstract nature of his argument, as well as the connection most human beings have with desiring happiness, to portray his argument in a very relatable way. Since most readers have little actual qualifications concerning the true science behind happiness, Sosa allows himself to sacrifice some ethos--by using a less formal, yet more relatable tone--in order to achieve a large increase in pathos. By continually guiding the reader to form his own opinion, not generalizing opinions and using a conversational style of language, Sosa is able to present his opinion in a way that makes an impact emotionally, without forcing ideas on people. This tone choice allows the article, as a whole, to feel as if it were a simple day-to-day conversation between people of equal stature and knowledge. This allows the reader to not feel intimidated by the speaker, but rather feel sympathetic to the authors ideas; the reader and the author feel as if they are going through the same struggle, in order to find happiness. The use of such sympathetic diction allows the reader more freedom in determining an opinion on the issue, increasing the pathos of the argument even more-so.

Overall, Sosa constructed the claim and argument very well. Sosa chose to focus his tactics primarily on gaining pathos. Perhaps the biggest reason Sosa chose to do this is the complexity of the claim made. Since happiness is an irrational feeling, it seems logical to play most heavily on readers’ emotions. Sosa also noticed the importance of establishing a good ethos. This came up as important as what little logos was established. Had Sosa maintained no ethos, the few logical reasons for his claim could easily have gone unnoticed, or disregarded. Logos lacked immensely in the argument, yet didn’t seem to change the effectiveness of the claim. Sosa’s style makes it evident that he believes the presence of such an irrational claim makes it difficult, and rather unnecessary to provide immense logical support. While not completely rounded, Sosa’s claim, through use of numerous rhetorical devices, continues to prove effective in establishing a good opinionated argument.