Argumentation

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 351–359 | Cite as

The Notion of Pseudo-Argument in Perelman’s Thought

Article
  • 156 Downloads

Abstract

According to Perelman (Rhétoriques, Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles, 1989: 80), a pseudo-argument is an argument that is supposed to be convincing from a given audience viewpoint, while it is not from another audience viewpoint. Such a claim raises the traditional problem of the boundaries between the well known “convince versus persuade” dichotomy. This paper aims at investigating it from a contemporary rhetorical and argumentative perspective which will take into account the fictional dimension of persuasion. In this perspective, it will be claimed that the notion of an “as if” argument better fits to some rhetorical phenomena.

Keywords

Perelman Pseudo argument “As if” Counter intuitive beliefs Universal audience Persuasion Conviction 

References

  1. Aristotle. 1924. Rhetoric. Ross, W. D. ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bilodeau, R. 2001. La satisfaction d’être dupe, 381–394 Philosophiques, 28/2.Google Scholar
  3. Boyer, P. 1994. Tradition as truth and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clément, F. 2006. Les mécanismes de la crédulité. Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
  5. Christie, G. 2000. The notion of an ideal audience in legal argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Crosswhite, J. 1989. Universality in rhetoric: Perelman’s universal audience. Philo Rhetor 22: 157–173.Google Scholar
  7. Danblon, E. 2001. La rationalité du discours épidictique. In La mise en scène des valeurs. La rhétorique de l’éloge et du blâme, ed. M. Dominicy, and M. Frédéric, 19–47. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
  8. Danblon, E. 2002. Rhétorique et rationalité. Essai sur l’émergence de la critique et de la persuasion, Brussels University Press, Collection “Philosophie et Société”.Google Scholar
  9. Danblon, E. 2004. Le langage de la preuve et l’auditoire universel chez Perelman. In Meyer, M., ed., Perelman. La Nouvelle Rhétorique, Presses Universitaires de France, Collection “Débats” dir. Y.-C. Zarka.Google Scholar
  10. Dominicy, M., and M. Frédéric. 2001. La mise en scène des valeurs. La rhétorique de l’éloge et du blâme. Lausanne: Delachaux & Niestlé.Google Scholar
  11. Elster, J. 1983. Sour grapes. Studies in the subversion of rationality. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Elster, J. (ed.). 1988. The multiple self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Pears, D. 1986. Motivated irrationality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Perelman, Ch., Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1969 (1958). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  15. Perelman, Ch. 1989. Rhétoriques. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  16. Schaeffer, J.-M. 1999. Pourquoi la fiction?. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FNRS, Free University of BrusselsBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations