Prolepsis: Dealing with Multiple Viewpoints in Argument

In Christopher W. Tindale Hans V. Hansen (ed.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground. Ossa. pp. 1--17 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper examines the argumentation strategy prolepsis: anticipating and subsequently responding to an argument before it has been made. Although prolepsis is common to a variety of arguments, it seems insufficiently studied or understood—or, worse, misunderstood as simply a “feint.” Drawing on scholarship in rhetorical theory and cognitive and social psychology, I offer a new understanding of prolepsis, recognizing the technique’s potential in argumentative discourse—especially in the search for “common ground.”

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,672

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The logic of viewpoints.Antti Hautamäki - 1983 - Studia Logica 42 (2-3):187 - 196.
Probabilistic arguments for multiple universes.Kai Draper, Paul Draper & Joel Pust - 2007 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (3):288–307.
Connectionism, reduction, and multiple realizability.John Bickle - 1995 - Behavior and Philosophy 23 (2):29-39.
The multiple realizability argument against reductionism.Elliott Sober - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (4):542-564.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-27

Downloads
26 (#607,778)

6 months
2 (#1,186,462)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Letter from a Birmingham jail.Martin Luther King Jr - 2000 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press USA.
Plain sex.Alan Goldman - 1977 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (3):267-287.
Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student.Edward P. J. Corbett - 1973 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 6 (2):125-126.

Add more references