Argues to reestablish the traditional role of rhetoric in education and discusses the importance of a student's ability to write a reasoned argument.

“Rhetoric is the counterpart of logic,” claimed Aristotle. “Rhetoric is the first part of logic rightly understood,” Martin Heidegger concurred. “Rhetoric is the universal form of human communication,” opined Hans-Georg Gadamer. But in _Deep Rhetoric_, James Crosswhite offers a groundbreaking new conception of rhetoric, one that builds a definitive case for an understanding of the discipline as a philosophical enterprise beyond basic argumentation and is fully conversant with the advances of the New Rhetoric of Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Chapter (...) by chapter, _Deep Rhetoric_ develops an understanding of rhetoric not only in its philosophical dimension but also as a means of guiding and conducting conflicts, achieving justice, and understanding the human condition. Along the way, Crosswhite restores the traditional dignity and importance of the discipline and illuminates the twentieth-century resurgence of rhetoric among philosophers, as well as the role that rhetoric can play in future discussions of ontology, epistemology, and ethics. At a time when the fields of philosophy and rhetoric have diverged, Crosswhite returns them to their common moorings and shows us an invigorating new way forward. (shrink)

There are two general senses of "post-truth." One is a contemporary, popular sense that captures the manner in which facts and truths have lost their power to inform public discussion and debate. This first sense is relatively new and is related to the explosion in the number of agencies and media by which truth claims are created and distributed and the corresponding monetization of the production of truth claims. There are so many news outlets, so many reports, so many conflicting (...) versions of events, so many conflicting interpretations of the outcome of even scientifically conducted research, that a general diminishment of trust has taken hold. This multiplication of truth claims exacerbates the confusing effects... (shrink)

Universality has become a predominant focus of critique. To take just three examples: the purported universality of Western values has been exposed as a major justification for violent imperial enterprises, feminist thought has exposed so-called universal norms as having a specifically masculine provenance and nature, and the study of whiteness has largely been the exposure of specifically white features of institutions, practices, arts, norms, and laws that have been taken to be universal and colorless. All these examples follow the general (...) Marxian form of critique that is guided by the proposition that all existing universalities conceal a factional interest. Universalities that function effectively and guide .. (shrink)

The contemporary study of argumentation has adopted a fundamentally rhetorical account of the standards of rationality, although it has also developed several ways to deny this. One is by obscuring the fact that its standards of rationality are primarily communicative and that an audience of some kind is the ultimate judge of the strength of arguments. Another is by defining “rhetoric” in such a way that it can no longer play any role in providing rational normativity. I want to challenge (...) these denials by pressing a single question. The question is: if formal validity is no longer the standard for evaluating arguments, then exactly what is? I direct this question at three highly developed, systematic, and .. (shrink)

Consider "debate" in the largest sense. In English, the word goes back to the fourteenth century and has a broad range of meanings. It can mean contention and quarreling and physical conflict early on but later settles into meanings of dispute, controversy, argument, discussion, and deliberation, especially regarding public matters. It can also mean to deliberate inwardly—to discuss or consider some issue with oneself. A philosophical antecedent of "debate" might be dialégomai, with meanings and variations related to discussion, dialogue, questioning, (...) dialectic: to think things through, to argue and discuss back and forth, one side and then another. This word overlaps with légein and so lógos and also suggests... (shrink)

Henry Johnstone's philosophical development was guided by a persistent need to reform the concept of validity -either by reinterpreting it or by finding a substitute for it. This project lead Johnstone into interesting confrontations with the concept of rhetoric and especiaUy with the work of Chaim Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca. The project culminated in a failed attempt to develop a formal ethics of rhetoric and argumentation, but this attempt was itself not consistent with some of Johnstone's other characterizations ofan ethics of (...) argument ation. A virtue ethics would be truer to the Johnstonian philosophical project than a formal ethics of argument. Resume. (shrink)

Presumption and Burden of Proof issues play a unique role in argumentation studies. Particular argumentative methods and techniques may advance or deter a line of reasoning, but burden and presumption issues decide when a line of reasoning is needed at all. There is little doubt that burden and presumption issues are hugely influential in determining the outcome of conflicts. In law, most burden and presumption issues are typically decided well before trials proceed and in fact must be decided in order (...) for trials to go forward. Once the burden and presumption issues are decided, some cases resolve themselves. And so being able to shift the burden of proof or change presumption is a power that seems to be qualitatively different from the power of ordinary argumentative techniques. For it is a power that shapes the rules whereby arguments proceed and the standards by which they are evaluated. Other kinds of arguments take place within the framework established by burden and presumption. Burden and presumption govern argumentation, make it possible, limit and define its outcome. (shrink)

More than fifty years have passed since Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca published Traité de l'argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique, and over forty have slipped by since the work was translated into English as The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. The inversion of the title and subtitle in the French and English versions expresses well the chiasmic dynamic of the philosophy of rhetoric and the rhetoric of philosophy that defines the new rhetoric project. Its overall aim is essentially philosophical: "the (...) justification of the possibility of a human community in the sphere of action when this justification cannot be grounded in a reality or an objective truth" (1969, 514). This project is .. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Freedom of speech and speech suppression have become fraught notions, and the question of what cannot be said is near the heart of the matter. In this essay, we describe some of the current challenges to free speech and then take up an exploration of a different but relevant “cannot be said”—silence—and inquire into its importance for a fuller understanding of freedom, speech, and “what cannot be said.”.

Most work on fallacies continues to conceptualize fallacious reasoning as involving a breach of a formal or quasi-formal rule. Chaim Perelman's theory of argumentation provides a way to conceptualize fallacies in a completely different way. His approach depends on an understanding of standards of rationality as essentially connected with conceptions of universality. Such an approach allows one to get beyond some of the basic problems of fallacy theory, and turns informal logic toward substantive philosophical questions. I show this by reinterpreting (...) three so-called fallacies - theargumentum ad baculum, equivocation and composition/division - in the light of Perelman's account. (shrink)