Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Arts and Humanities Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Philosophy

University of Windsor

Conference

2013

Dialectic

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities

Rhetoric, Dialectic And Logic: The Triad De-Compartmentalized, Charlotte Jørgensen May 2013

Rhetoric, Dialectic And Logic: The Triad De-Compartmentalized, Charlotte Jørgensen

OSSA Conference Archive

Taking Blair’s recent contribution to the debate about the triad as its starting point, the paper discusses and challenges the effort to reduce the intricate relationship between rhetoric, dialectic, and logic to a single criterion or watertight trichotomy. I argue that such efforts obscure the complexities within the fields, their differences being partly due to disciplinary traditions. They neglect the intermingling properties of the fields as well as the possibilities for theoretical bridging between them.


Arguing Or Reasoning? Argumentation In Rhetorical Context, Manfred Kraus May 2013

Arguing Or Reasoning? Argumentation In Rhetorical Context, Manfred Kraus

OSSA Conference Archive

If dialogue is a necessary condition for argument, argumentation in oratory becomes questionable, since rhetoric is not a dialogically structured activity. If special norms apply to the ‘solo’ performances of rhetoric, the orator’s activity may be more appropriately described as reasoning than as arguing. By analyzing in what respect rhetorical texts can be interpreted as dialogue-based and subject to criteria of Informal Logic, the virtues of rhetorical argumentation in contrast to logic and dialectic emerge.


Polylogical Fallacies: Are There Any?, Marcin Lewiński May 2013

Polylogical Fallacies: Are There Any?, Marcin Lewiński

OSSA Conference Archive

Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants (di-logue). What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for (poly-logues)? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.