Is crucial and must be resurrected from its negative

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: is crucial, and must be resurrected from its negative associations, because we cannot use reason (i.e., Fconvincing¢) to discern matters of opinion (i.e., anything not calculated.) \The philosopher¢s appeal to reason gives no guaranteee whatever that everyone will agree with his point of view¡ (p. 13, 1979). Consequently, rationality, for Perelman, is a function of the historical and social Weltanschauung of the appropriate community. \Consequently, the idea of a rational argumentation cannot be defined in abstracto ...¡(ibid, p. 14). 1 I a m i n d e b t e d t o v a r i o u s p e o p l e f o r c o m m e n t s o n t h i s w o r k . M o s t e s p e c i a l l y C h a r l e s Willard and Ralph Johnson. An earlier version of this paper was presented to the International society for the Study of Argumentation . Amsterdam, 1989. M.A. GILBERT MULTI-MODAL ARGUMENTATION PHIL OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES VOL 24 NR 2 .2 Once the door is opened to persuasion the entire gamut of human contextuality comes into play, and social scientists, not just logicians (whether formal or informal) are required to fully unravel dialogic argumentation . Argument must be seen as an interaction utilising far more than traditional rational means to convince or persuade. In fact, the classical differentiation between those two terms that raises ¡convince¢ to an honorific and ¡persuade¢ to a derogative must be abandoned. Perelman, however, was not willing to go quite this far. His importation of the Universal Audience, like Berkeley¢s God, comes in to keep everything from going too far astray. Even the most recent work in the rôle of goals in discourse has prompted J.P. Dillard (1990) to query the rôle of ¡logicality¢ in persuasive communications. \Three trained judges] rated various descriptions of intereaction for this characterisitic which is identified by \offering several realistic and compelling reasons] (p. 86), and \the degree to which the source makes use of evidence and reason] (p. 85). Presuambly, the balance of the interaction is non-logical, and, at the very least, is seen as seperabale from the remainder. Consequently, it should be clear that the two assumptions, the first regarding linearity, and the second regarding the marginalization of non-discursive forms as rational, are alive and well. And yet, in looking, for example, at Dillard¢s work, the question must be asked: by whom were the judges trained? In whose sense of rationality? In whose system of logic? And, if persuaion takes place is it because of the logic, or do we it subsequently, when we want to incorporate said belief into our alethic system. Such questions are paramount for the social sciences insofar as they imply methodological assumptions that are not made explicit in an environment when, more and more, the direct linear tradition is supposedly being abandoned. I quote C.A. Willard....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 13

is crucial and must be resurrected from its negative...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online