, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 353–363 | Cite as

Harald R. Wohlrapp: The Concept of Argument: A Philosophical Foundation. Logic, Argumentation and Reasoning 4

Springer, Dordrecht, 2014, pp. lxii + 443, hardcover US$179, eBook $139, softcover $24.99, ISBN: 978-94-017-8761-1 (print), 978-017-8762-8 (online)
  • David HitchcockEmail author

In this work, the fruit of some 30 years of research in the Hamburg argumentation group, the author proposes a new philosophical foundation for the study of argumentation. His theory can be briefly characterized as “pragmatic-dialectical”, since it is shaped by a Peircean pragmatism and a quasi-Hegelian dialectic. It is both more pragmatic and more dialectical than the Amsterdam pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation.

Readers are likely to find the book difficult to follow, because of its many new concepts and new definitions of old concepts. The present reviewer found it useful to write a close summary of the entire book, amounting to 84 single-spaced pages, and to have the author check it for accuracy. The summary is available from the present reviewer on request.

It hardly needs to be said that, despite its difficulty, the book deserves to be read carefully by anyone with a serious research interest in argumentation. It is not every day that a new philosophical basis for the...


  1. Adler, J. 2013. Are conductive arguments possible? Argumentation 27: 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apel, K.-O. 2002. Pragmatismus als sinnkritischer Realismus auf der Basis regulativer Ideen. In Hilary Putnam und die Tradition des Pragmatismus, ed. M.L. Raters, and M. Willaschek, 117–150. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  3. Bailin, S., and M. Battersby. 2010. Reason in the balance: An inquiry approach to critical thinking. Whitby: McGraw Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
  4. Blair, J.A., and R. Johnson (eds.). 2011. Conductive argument. An overlooked type of defeasible reasoning. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Finocchiaro, M. 2013. Meta-argumentation. An approach to logic and argumentation theory. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Habermas, J. 1984/1981. The theory of communicative action, volume one: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press. German original first published 1981.Google Scholar
  7. Habermas, J. 1996/1991. Between facts and norms. Trans. W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. German original first published 1991.Google Scholar
  8. Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, R. 2000. Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Kenyon, T. 2008. Clear thinking in a blurry world. Toronto: Nelson Education.Google Scholar
  11. Peirce, C.S. 1955/1878. How to make our ideas clear. In Philosophical Writings of Peirce, ed. J. Buchler, 22–41. New York: Dover. First published in 1878.Google Scholar
  12. Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969/1958). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. French-language original first published in 1958.Google Scholar
  13. Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations