Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 513–525 | Cite as

Parmenides as Secret Hero. Gregor Betz’s Theorie Dialektischer Strukturen (Theory of Dialectical Structures)

Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 2010, 292 pp, ISBN: 978-3-465-03629-6, EUR 49.00 (Bound Paperback)
  • Frank Zenker
Article
  • 150 Downloads

Introduction

Many will know the drill: Number the premises, draw a line, put down the conclusion, then ask under what conditions the former deductively imply the latter. Regularly treated with mild disrespect by some working on a theory of argumentation, this book shows: Reconstructing natural language argumentation with deductive logic takes you “quite some distance.” Moreover, it extends to the kind of complex argumentation we call controversiers, and yields visual representations (“maps”) to reveal a state of a debate as a dialectical structure. The following gives an overview, summarizes at some length the gist (Sect. 2), then provides a comment and an evaluation (Sect. 3).

The book has four parts. Part 1, Motivation and Point of Departure, divides into an introduction, examples of complex argumentation, and a chapter tracing connections to extant work. Part 2, Features of a Theory of Dialectical Structures, provides chapters on the structure of complex argumentation, on...

References

  1. Dung, P.M. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77: 321–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Frankfurt, H.G. 1970. Dreamers, demons, and madmen: The defense of reasons in Descartes’ meditations. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  3. Mackie, J.L. 1985. Das Wunder des Theismus. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  4. Newman, L. 2007. Descartes’ epistemology. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta, Fall 2007. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2007/entries/descartes-epistemology.
  5. Praaken, H., and G. Veeswijk. 2001. Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Handbook of philosophical logic, Vol. 4, ed. D.M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, 219–318. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Quine, W.v.O. 1953. Two dogmas of empiricism. In From a Logical Point of View. 20–46, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  8. Rescher, N. 2005. Über philosophische Systematisierungen: Plausibilität und Hegels Vision. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosphie 53: 179–202.Google Scholar
  9. Ritola, J. 2001. Wilson on circular arguments. Argumentation 15: 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Salmon, W.C. 1983. Logik. Reclam: Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  12. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Williams, B. 1981. Descartes: Das Vorhaben der reinen philosphischen Untersuchung. Königstein: Athenäum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Cognitive ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Helsinki Collegium for Advanced StudiesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations