Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Dialogues in Argumentation.Von Burg Ron - 2016 - Windsor: University of Windsor.
    This volume focuses on dialogue and argumentation in contexts which are marked by truculence and discord. The contributors include well known argumentation scholars who discuss the issues this raises from the point of view of a variety of disciplines and points of view. The authors seek to address theoretically challenging issues in a way that is relevant to both the theory and the practice of argument. The collection brings together selected essays from the 2006 11th Wake Forest University Biennial Argumentation (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic Commentaries on the Categories.Chiara Militello - 2014 - Peitho 5 (1):91-118.
    This paper lists and examines the explicit references to Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories. The references to the Topics by Porphyry, Dexippus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus and David are listed according the usual prolegomena to Aristotle’s works. In particular, the paper reconstructs David ’s original thesis about the proponents of the title Pre-Topics for the Categories and compares Ammonius’, Simplicius’ and Olympiodorus’ doxographies about the postpraedicamenta. Moreover, the study identifies two general trends. The first one (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies.Marcin Lewiński - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):193-218.
    Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants. What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for? 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.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Aristotle on Universal Quantification: A Study From the Point of View of Game Semantics.M. Marion & H. Rückert - 2016 - History and Philosophy of Logic 37 (3):201-229.
    In this paper we provide an interpretation of Aristotle's rule for the universal quantifier in Topics Θ 157a34–37 and 160b1–6 in terms of Paul Lorenzen's dialogical logic. This is meant as a contribution to the rehabilitation of the role of dialectic within the Organon. After a review of earlier views of Aristotle on quantification, we argue that this rule is related to the dictum de omni in Prior Analytics A 24b28–29. This would be an indication of the dictum’s origin in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Handbook of Argumentation Theory.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren, Erik Bart Garssen, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans C. W. Krabbe, Jean Bart Verheij & H. M. Wagemans - 2014 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.) - 2012 - Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Response to My Commentator.Marcin Lewiński - unknown
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Argumentative Discussion: The Rationality of What?Marcin Lewiński - 2019 - Topoi 38 (4):645-658.
    Most dialectical models view argumentation as a process of critically testing a standpoint. Further, they assume that what we critically test can be analytically reduced to individual and bi-polar standpoints. I argue that these two assumptions lead to the dominant view of dialectics as a bi-partisan argumentative discussion in which the yes-side argues against the doubter or the no-side. I scrutinise this binary orientation in understanding argumentation by drawing on the main tenets of normative pragmatic and pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Paradox of Charity.Marcin Lewiński - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (4):403-439.
    The principle of charity is used in philosophy of language and argumentation theory as an important principle of interpretation which credits speakers with “the best” plausible interpretation of their discourse. I contend that the argumentation account, while broadly advocated, misses the basic point of a dialectical conception which approaches argumentation as discussion between two parties who disagree over the issue discussed. Therefore, paradoxically, an analyst who is charitable to one discussion party easily becomes uncharitable to the other. To overcome this (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Pomponazzi y la eternidad del mundo: entre el problema neutro y el saber dialéctico= Pomponazzi and the eternity of the World: between the neutral problem and dialectical wisdom.Juan Manuel Forte - 2013 - Endoxa 31:279-298.
    In the last chapter of De immortalitate animae, Pomponazzi claims that the question of immortality, just like the question of the eternity of the world, is a neutral problem. In this paper I claim that Pomponazzi has usually considered the aeternitas mundi as a probable proposition in the Aristotelian sense, rather than as a problem. Furthermore, I evaluate some analyses that use the former issues (among others) to interpret Pomponazzi’s thought.
    Direct download (7 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Review of M. Spranzi, The Art of Dialectic Between Dialogue and Rhetoric: The Aristotelian Tradition[REVIEW]Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):89-92.
  • Review of M. Spranzi, The Art of Dialectic Between Dialogue and Rhetoric: The Aristotelian Tradition. [REVIEW]Jean Hm Wagemans - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):89-92.