Talk:Pathetic fallacy

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) The ABOVE is most definitely NOT an example of Pathetic Fallacy.Nfultonovich (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2010 (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)Reply

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

[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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"Zipcars live here." was a great one. Why did we remove this.--Loodog (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Huh? What does that have to do with the pathetic fallacy? I'm not familiar with the advertisement in question, but the article on Zipcars doesn't explain. Without knowing the connection to this article, I'd be inclined to remove it. -Phoenixrod (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Zipcars don't live anywhere. To claim that they do is to ascribe animal if not human characteristics/actions to them.--Loodog (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right, but that's not the same as the pathetic fallacy. That's simply personification. From this article: "Personification is direct and explicit in the ascription of life and sentience to the thing in question, whereas the pathetic fallacy is much broader and more allusive." The Zipcar example is simple personification. I expect that's why it was removed. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain what would constitute a pathetic fallacy with Zipcars, for my edification?--Loodog (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ha ha, nicely put. :) Since I'm not familiar with Zipcar or the ad in question, forgive me if I don't get the spirit of Zipcars quite right. But for Ruskin, personification goes too far and becomes a fallacy when it ascribes to inanimate objects distinctly human capabilities, sensations, and emotions. The pathetic fallacy represents not truth, but "the extraordinary, or false appearances, when we are under the influence of emotion, or contemplative fancy" (Ruskin's words, which I am getting from M.H. Abrams). In other words, the Zipcar example isn't giving an overly wrought emotional description; mere "living here" is no more than simple personification. Sorry if I'm getting long-winded here. To answer your question, an example of the pathetic fallacy would be something like "Zipcars weep lonely tears, shivering that you won't return to drive them." It's that extra pathos that makes for the pathetic fallacy.

Or even, "Zipcars get lonely"?--Loodog (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Possibly. While I wouldn't call that the pathetic fallacy, the point could be argued. Abrams says that in today's (literary) usage, the pathetic fallacy is "a neutral name for a very common phenomenon in descriptive poetry, in which the ascription is less formal and more indirect than in the figure called personification." I think getting lonely is still quite direct, so your example would still be personification. But if you described the idea of getting lonely in more abstract or pathetic terms, or represented it with an action that indicates loneliness, then you'd have the pathetic fallacy for sure. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is a character called the pathetic fallacy in the fables comic book series (see here). Should we put a link to that page in here somewhere, and if so, is there a template that would be appropriate to do it? --TruthfulCynic 22:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

A mention was in the article until this edit, apparently. Maybe if it were phrased differently, it wouldn't be considered original research? -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be mentioned, because, relevant or not, it's an excellent exemple; it turns the pathetic fallacy itself into a humanoid character, with a body, a history, and wants (he prefers to be called Gary). There's a whole class of characters in Fables called the Literals who are similar literary personifications, and the fact that Gary is described as the first (and possible common ancestor) of them is a nod to the fact that they are all, in a reflexive way, examples of the fallacy. --LaloMartins (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

However, use of the pathetic fallacy can be a good way to quickly explain complex scientific concepts in an easily understood form.

This is just one of several places where the article confuses metaphor with fallacy. Should we list "selfish gene" as an example? I feel confident that Dawkins is not under the delusion that genes are sentient; there is no fallacy, just metaphor. 68.239.116.212 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for moving discussion here. I'm clueless on this topic, but it would probably be best if you could find a written resource that backs up this claim. Then, be WP:BOLD and fix it. You may also want to consider getting an account. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

(From the "In science" section)

"The philosopher Owen Barfield points out we say that two masses are gravitationally "attracted", or that an object "tends" to stay still and not accelerate..."

Neither the word "tends" (nor the phrase "tends to") necessarily imply sentience, so this doesn't really illustrate PF. -- TyrS  chatties  07:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree. In fact, I think the whole section on science is poorly sourced and based on the flawed assumption that the pathetic fallacy is interchangeable with simple personification. Perhaps the whole section needs to be removed, or at least rewritten with actual sources. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Current definitions for this phrase, pathetic fallacy, diverge significantly from the original definition given by John Ruskin, who coined the term to help describe the way emotions affect a person’s apprehension of the world. This emotional aspect of the definition seems to be the thing that especially has been lost.

An interesting aspect of Ruskin’s definition is that he did not intend his phrase to be confined to misapprehensions involving personification. For example, Ruskin quotes a poet describing a crocus as “gold” when the flower is, in fact, not “gold”. Ruskin offered this as an example of pathetic fallacy based on a seeing or describing the wrong color.

The language has not come up with another phrase to describe what Ruskin was attempting to describe.

Ruskin's original meaning seems to occur only when discussing Ruskin. As does George P. Landow, Professor of English and the History of Art, at Brown University in an essay on this website: http://www.victorianweb.org/technique/pathfall.html

According to Ruskin a pathetic fallacy describes “false appearances” that can occur when a person is “under the influence of emotion, or contemplative fancy”. These false appearances can include seeing human attributes in inanimate objects, and also seeing other “untrue” qualities in things.

DocFido (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The claim that “Pathetic Fallacy” is more “allusive” than personification is difficult to make sense of -- the quality of “allusiveness” in reference to “Pathetic Fallacy” seems to be a radically new idea that doesn’t occur in Ruskin, or the literature since. So, where did the notion originate?

It can be traced to a web-page called Webster’s Online Dictionary -- but there’s a problem: They claim, on the Webster’s page, that they got the information from the internet -- but the source website they refer to doesn’t exist. (“Domain not found.”)

Aside from the problem of choosing an authoritative source, if “common sense” is used, a good question becomes: Is it is it possible to come up with an example or examples to demonstrate the idea that a “Pathetic Fallacy” is more “allusive” than personification?

I’d suggest that Wikipedia, when it’s possible to make a choice, should rely the best possible source, especially when decent definitions elsewhere are not hard to find.

DocFido (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how it's "difficult to make sense of", it seems rather straight forward. Actually, they say in their extended definition that they got it from WP. That's a problem.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 01:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The section pathetic fallacy#In legend seems like an odd fit. More animism than personification, much less pathetic fallacy... Perhaps it's missing something?—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 22:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree it seems like an odd fit, though it's interesting. Also I'm not sure it qualifies as a "legend", or that "legend" needs a category here.DocFido (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

To any regular editor: Someone has done grave damage to the "in science" section, and it should be reverted to a previous version. I came back here to direct a friend to that particular section, which I had read months ago and really enjoyed. It's now been replaced with a bunch of garbled jargon and post-doc philosophy babble, talking about "inappropriate modal force" and "conatus", and is shed of all its interesting examples and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.140.182 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Spannerjam:

I reverted your edits because they are off topic, and because the introduction, like the article, is specifically about the Pathetic fallacy; the Franklin example was out of place, because it was given undue weight in the Introduction. The mentions of the other types of literary fallacies are thematically incidental to the subject; each has a topic-specific page in the wikipedia, and so are off topic in an article about the Pathetic fallacy; thus, I reverted the irrelevant insertion of "differing" subjects, which usage is, itself, a pathetic fallacy; "different subjects" is the accurate designation.

Sorry, but your grasp of the subject is dodgy, per your own admission in the edit history; thus the corrections. Be a sport, and let us agree to disagree, and so agree to work our respective sides of the Wikipedia street.

Regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I reverted your most recent edit. Some of the changes may have been worthwhile, but capitalizing a whole bunch of nouns that are properly lowercase is not a good thing, and the word "poetess" is obsolete. It is appropriate that poetry—or at least literature—be mentioned up front, although I'd agree it could be done less awkwardly without the parentheses. Suggestion: either make separate, smaller edits or let's hash out a workable compromise here on the talk page first. Rivertorch (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Follow-up: it shouldn't be necessary to seek consensus to fix capitalization errors, but since the most recent edit to the article contains other content which I dispute, I'd like input from at least one other editor. Would someone please review the diff and comment here (whether you revert or not)? Rivertorch (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article is badly in need of help -- it's so confusing to read and there are many things that seem to be the result of original research or ideas that are not supported. And there are ideas that have a foot-note, but are not supported by the footnote. Maybe there have been too many cooks?

There is so much confusion out there in the world regarding this subject and Wikipedia could do everyone a favor and clear things up -- instead of adding to the confusion. It needs to be said somehow in the first sentence that PF is a literary term, or that it exists in the context of literature or the arts or the poetic -- so that it doesn't seem that PF has some kind of magic power that actually alters the nature of clouds or leaves. Which may seem obvious, except that later in the article PF is compared to animism, of all things, which actually does believe in that kind of magic . PF shouldn't be compared to animism.

PF is a lit term that's very similar to personification. This article is also very mixed up in terms of what Ruskin meant by PF and what the term means nowadays. They are not at all the same thing. We have moved away from Ruskin and his definition should be compartmentalized as of historic interest.

Also adding to the confusion Ruskin used two words whose definition has since become obsolete. Fallacy used to mean "falseness", but nowadays it doesn't. (this can be shown in the OED) it is instead attached to the idea of "logical error" -- and nothing but. So of course people look at the phrase and say, "Hey this is not a fallacy!" It's not. The phrase no longer fits the two words used in the phrase, which is okay, but people find it confusing. A similar thing has happened to the word pathetic.

And the capitalizations are not right. There are manuals of style to help in this.

DocFido (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your insights! Can I ask why your user talk page redirects to an article? Rivertorch (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize that about my user page. I will investigate. Thanks.DocFido (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great. I would have moved it for you but I didn't want to be presumptuous. Rivertorch (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article was riddled with errors and with ideas that were "original research" that were not supported by the citation or footnote that seemed to support it. It also was rambling, and meandering between the historic and current use, it was contradictory, and confusing. It was a mess.

Plus it had very long regurgitations of Ruskin's essay -- that essay is linked at the bottom of the page anyway. And which is interesting to read.

I felt that the article needed to be trimmed down to something succinct. I think this is an improvement.DocFido (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of topics in here about the conflicting definitions of pathetic fallacy being misrepresented in the article. I did a rewrite of the history to more clearly represent the two definitions and removed a third opinion which was original research. The last topic update on this talk page was in 2013 (10 years ago), so I think this indicates the article is in a much better state now. Lightbloom (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply