Advertisement

Relationships Among Logic, Dialectic and Rhetoric

  • J. Anthony Blair
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 8)

Abstract

A consideration of the relationship among logic, dialectic and rhetoric was found already in the work of Plato and Aristotle and others in the first golden age of Western philosophy, and this relationship has received attention down through Western history (see the historical observations in Krabbe, 2000, in Hohmann, 2000, and in Leff, 2000). The argumentation scholarly community was reminded of its salience in the late 20th century (see Wenzel, 1990) and has returned to its examination. In the last five years or so, a flurry of activity has raised the profile of these questions in this community, particularly with the focus on how dialectic and rhetoric and their relationships bear on the identification, interpretation and assessment of arguments and argumentation (see the special issues of Argumentation edited by Hansen and Tindale, 1998, and by van Eemeren and Houtlosser, 1998).

Keywords

Argumentative Discourse Defense Counsel Informal Logic Argumentative Move Dialectical Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Biro, J. and H. Siegel. (1991). Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In: F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair and CA. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation Across the Lines of Discipline (pp. 33–45), Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  2. Blair, J.A. and R.H. Johnson (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation 1, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, D.H. (2001). Evaluating arguments and making meta-arguments. Informal Logic 21, 73–84.Google Scholar
  4. Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Eemeren, F.H. van and P. Houtlosser. (Eds.). (1998). The Relation between Dialectic and Rhetoric, special issue of Argumentation, 12.2.Google Scholar
  7. Eemeren, F.H. van and P. Houtlosser. (2000a). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation 14, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eemeren, F.H. van and P. Houtlosser. (2000b). Argumentation, interpretation, rhetoric. Argumentation Online Journal. aiFoss, S.K., K.A. Foss, and R. Trapp. (1991). Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gilbert, M.A. (1997). Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Goldman, A.I. (1985). Relation between epistemology and psychology. Synthese 64, 29–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldman, A.I. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Govier, T. (1999). Progress and regress in the dialectical tier. In: T. Govier, The Philosophy of Argument, Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  13. Govier, T. (1998). Arguing forever? Or: Two tiers of argument appraisal. In: H.V. Hansen, C.W. Tindale and A. Coleman (Eds.), Argumentation and Rhetoric, Proceedings of the 1997 Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation conference, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada. CD ROM.Google Scholar
  14. Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Tr. By Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hansen, H.V. and Tindale, C.W. (Eds.). (1998). Rhetorical Considerations in the Study of Argumentation, special issue of Argumentation 12.2.Google Scholar
  16. Hintikka, J. (1989). The role of logic in argument. The Monist 72: 3–24.Google Scholar
  17. Hohmann, H. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic: Some historical and legal perspectives. Argumentation 14, 223–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, R.H. (1996). Arguers and dialectical obligations. Unpublished paper presented to the Ontario Philosophical Society, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada, October.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, R.H. (2000a). More on arguers and their dialectical obligations. In: H.V. Hansen, and C.W. Tindale (Eds.), Argument at the Century’s Turn, Proceedings of the 1999 Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation conference, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada. CD ROM.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, R.H. (2000b). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Johnstone, Jr. H.W. (1959). Philosophy and Argument. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Krabbe, E.C.W. (2000). Meeting in the house of Callias: Rhetoric and dialectic. Argumentation 14, 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leff, M. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation 14, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  25. Pinto, R.C. (1994). Logic, entailment and argument appraisal. In: R.H. Johnson and J.A. Blair (Eds.), New Essays in Informal Logic (pp. 116–124), Windsor, ON: Informal Logic.Google Scholar
  26. Reboul, O. (1991). Introduction ä la rhétorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  27. Tindale, C.W. (1999). Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  28. Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wenzel, J.W. (1980). Perspectives on argument. In: J. Rhodes and S. Newell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1979 Summer Conference on Argument. Falls Church: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  30. Wenzel, J.W. (1990). Three perspectives on argument: rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In: R. Trapp and J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9–26), Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  31. Woods, J. (1995). Fearful symmetry. In: H.V. Hansen and R.C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (pp. 181–193). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Anthony Blair

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations