Abstracts
Abstract
This paper is a response to H. Siegel’s “Arguing with Arguments” from a rhetorical perspective on argumentation. First I address Siegel’s concept of ‘argument in its abstract propositional sense’ and attempt to show that it is not at all an obvious object that should unquestionably be the privileged focus of argumentation theory. I then defend C. W. Tindale’s rhetorical perspective on argumentation against some of Siegel’s misreadings and also some of his legitimate disagreements regarding the relations between persuasion and rational justification and the way we should understand the source of argumentative normativity.
Keywords:
- argumentative normativity,
- epistemic perspective on argumentation,
- objectivity,
- persuasion,
- rational justification,
- rhetorical perspective on argumentation
Résumé
Cet article est une réponse à « Arguing with Arguments » de H. Siegel d’un point de vue rhétorique sur l’argumentation. J’aborde d’abord le concept siegelien d’« argument dans son sens propositionnel abstrait » et tente de montrer qu’il ne s’agit pas du tout d’un objet évident qui devrait incontestablement être le centre privilégié de la théorie de l’argumentation. Je défends ensuite la perspective rhétorique de C. W. Tindale sur l’argumentation contre certaines erreurs de lecture de Siegel ainsi que contre certains de ses désaccords légitimes concernant les relations entre persuasion et justification rationnelle et la manière dont nous devrions comprendre la source de la normativité argumentative.
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Dutilh Novaes, C. 2021. The dialogical roots of deduction: Historical, cognitive, and philosophical perspectives on reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Eemeren, F.H. van. 2018. Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham: Springer.
- Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, commu-nication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Gilbert, M.A. 2014. Arguing with people. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
- Goodnight, T. 2012 [1982]. The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public delibera-tion. Argumentation and Advocacy 48(4): 198-210.
- Johnson, R. H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argu-ment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Leal, F. and H. Marraud. 2022. How philosophers argue. Cham: Spring-er.
- Levi, D. S. 1995. The case of the missing premise. Informal Logic 17(1): 67-88.
- Olmos, P. 2018. The social nature of argumentative practices: The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Informal Logic 38(1): 151-183.
- Marraud, H. 2020. Holism of reasons and its consequences for argu-mentation theory. In Reason to dissent. Proceedings of the 3rd Euro-pean conference on argumentation, Vol. III, eds. C. Dutilh Novaes et al., 167-180. London: College Publications.
- Morgan, M., K. Hajek and D. Berry (Eds.). 2022. Narrative science: Reasoning, representing and knowing since 1800. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
- Siegel, Harvey. 2023. Arguing with arguments: Argument quality, argumentative norms, and the strengths of the epistemic theory. In-formal Logic. 43(4): 465–526.
- Tindale, C. W. 2015. The philosophy of argument and audience recep-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Tindale, C. W. 2021. The anthropology of argument: Cultural founda-tions of rhetoric and reason. NY: Routledge.