Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/springer-journals/how-philosophers-argue-argument-dialectic-hOgLpI1i4u
References (8)
-
A. Henkemans, F. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst (2002)
Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation -
J. Woods (2000)
How Philosophical is Informal LogicInformal Logic, 20
-
J. Freeman (2011)
Argument Structure: Representation and Theory, 18
-
益子 真由美 (1993)
On Argument Structure -
F. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst (1984)
Speech acts in argumentative discussions -
R. Pinto (2001)
Argument, Inference and Dialectic, Collected Papers on Informal Logic with an Introduction by Hans V. Hansen, 4
-
Marianne Doury (2013)
The Virtues of Argumentation from an Amoral Analyst’s PerspectiveInformal Logic, 33
-
N. Rescher (1977)
Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Copyright
- © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
- ISBN
- 978-3-030-85367-9
- Pages
- 281 –295
- DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-030-85368-6_9
- Publisher site
- See Chapter on Publisher Site
Abstract
[My analysis of the Copleston-Russell debate can be described as both logical and dialectical. Our understanding of the main perspectives on argumentation derives largely from Wenzel’s three Ps principle: the rhetorical perspective understands and evaluates arguing as a natural process of persuasive communication; the dialectical perspective understands and evaluates arguing as a procedure or cooperative method for making critical decisions; and the logical perspective understands and evaluates arguments as products that people create. My analysis is logical in that it focuses on intra- and inter-argumentative relations, and at the same time it is dialectical in that it places at the core the relations of opposition between arguments.]
Published: Feb 21, 2022