Argumentation最新文献_第9页

Argumentation in Philosophical Controversies 哲学争论中的论证

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-09 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09581-7

Fernando Leal, Hubert Marraud

{"title":"Argumentation in Philosophical Controversies","authors":"Fernando Leal, Hubert Marraud","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09581-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09581-7","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Anyone interested in philosophical argumentation should be prepared to study philosophical debates and controversies because it is an intensely dialogical, and even contentious, genre of argumentation. There is hardly any other way to do them justice. This is the reason why the present special issue addresses philosophical argumentation within philosophical debates. Of the six articles in this special issue, one deals with a technical aspect, the diagramming of arguments, another contrasts two moments in philosophical argumentation, Antiquity and the twentieth century, focusing on the use of refutation, and the remaining four analyze particular philosophical controversies. The controversies analyzed differ significantly in their characteristics (time, extension, media, audience,…). Hopefully, this varied sample will illuminate some salient aspects of philosophical argumentation, its representation and variations throughout history. We are fully aware that, given the scarcity of previous studies of philosophical debates from the perspective of argumentation theory, the following specimens of analysis must have several shortcomings. But it is a well-known adage that the hardest part is the beginning. That is what we tried to achieve here, no more, but no less either.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 4","pages":"455 - 479"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-022-09581-7.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50467185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

An Unconscious Universal in the Mind is Like an Immaterial Dinner in the Stomach. A Debate on Logical Generalism (1914–1919) 心灵中的无意识世界就像胃中的非物质晚餐。关于逻辑通论的争论（1914–1919）

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-08 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09580-8

Hubert Marraud

{"title":"An Unconscious Universal in the Mind is Like an Immaterial Dinner in the Stomach. A Debate on Logical Generalism (1914–1919)","authors":"Hubert Marraud","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09580-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09580-8","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The debate on the a fortiori and the universal that took place between April 1914 and April 1919 in the journal Mind has a double interest for argumentation theorists. First, the discussion is an example of a philosophical polylogue that exhibits the characteristics of a quasi-engaged dialogue (Blair Blair, J. A. (2012 [1998]). “The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument”. Argumentation 12, pp. 325–339. Reprinted in J.A. Blair, Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation, pp. 231–244. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012.), confirming Blair’s hypothesis that journal papers and scholarly monographs can be analyzed as turns in non-engaged or quasi-engaged dialogues. It could be said that philosophical argumentation is dialectical but not dialogical. Second, the debate is a discussion in argumentation theory. Generalism in the theory of argument claims that the very possibility of arguing depends on a suitable supply of general rules that specify what kinds of conclusions can be drawn from what kinds of data, while particularism denies this. Although the terminology may be alien, I will also show that the debate on the a fortiori and the universal was a debate on generalism and particularism.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 4","pages":"569 - 593"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-022-09580-8.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50464215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

The Persistent Interlocutor 持久的对话者

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-07 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09578-2

Job de Grefte

引用次数: 2

Bramhall Versus Hobbes: The Rhetoric of Religion vs. the Rhetoric of Philosophy 布拉姆霍尔与霍布斯：宗教修辞与哲学修辞

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-06 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09582-6

Shai Fogel

{"title":"Bramhall Versus Hobbes: The Rhetoric of Religion vs. the Rhetoric of Philosophy","authors":"Shai Fogel","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09582-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09582-6","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The paper uses the controversy about liberty between the philosopher Thomas Hobbes and Archbishop John Bramhall to illustrate the conflict between the rhetoric of philosophy and the rhetoric of religion. The first part of the paper introduces initial definitions of these two types of rhetoric. The following three parts deal with three distinct parts of the controversy, as Hobbes and Bramhall define them: to the reader, arguments from scripture, and arguments from reason. The fact that Hobbes and Bramhall themselves divide the arguments into those from scripture and those from reason makes this controversy a good illustration of the conflict between rhetoric of philosophy and rhetoric of religion.</p><p>The rhetorical perspective exposes the epistemological conflict between philosophy and religion that the philosophical discourse often blurs. It is a conflict that concerns the basic attitude of an individual towards the truth as a believer or as a thinker. The rhetoric of philosophy assumes that human understanding defines the truth and therefore gives priority to arguments from reason as they address that understanding. The rhetoric of religion assumes that truth is beyond human understanding and can only be revealed by faith and therefore gives priority to arguments from scripture as they address human faith. The reader may join the opponents in asking whether human liberty is a philosophical issue and therefore subject to arguments from reason or a theological one, subject to arguments from scripture.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 4","pages":"481 - 491"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-022-09582-6.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50457428","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Twitter Activists’ Argumentation Through Subdiscussions: Theory, Method and Illustration of the Controversy Surrounding Sustainable Fashion 推特活动人士的争论：可持续时尚争议的理论、方法和例证

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-06 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09579-1

Sara Greco

{"title":"Twitter Activists’ Argumentation Through Subdiscussions: Theory, Method and Illustration of the Controversy Surrounding Sustainable Fashion","authors":"Sara Greco","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09579-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09579-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>“Why are millions of dollars worth of orders being left unpaid?”. With tweets like this questioning brands’ policies, activists advocating for sustainable fashion re-discuss material starting points that are assumed by fashion brands, who argue that they are sustainable because they care about their workers’ conditions. This paper argues that activists use tweets to open <i>subdiscussions on material starting points</i> to engage citizens and consumers, re-discussing factual <i>data</i> that brands take for granted, such as the fact that they provide fair conditions for their garment workers. Activists justify their opening of subdiscussions, often through an argumentative pattern that includes an argument based on the <i>locus from effects to cause</i>. They argue that if there are negative effects, the brand cannot claim to care about the conditions of its workers. In discussing how subdiscussions are used by fashion activists, this paper also introduces a conceptualization of Twitter argumentation as a discussion that is not isolated, but is part of a polylogical argumentation that takes place in different venues. For this reason, the argumentation used in tweets is reconstructed as a response to a fashion brand’s communication campaigns around sustainability, which extend beyond the confines of Twitter. As an empirical illustration, this paper is based on the campaign targeting fashion retailer Primark; the dataset includes the brand’s website as well as activists’ tweets.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"37 1","pages":"1 - 23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-022-09579-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10717936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Michel Meyer (1950–2022) 米歇尔·迈耶（1950–2022）

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-08-24 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09577-3

Christian Plantin