To conceptualize early Chinese discourse in terms of disputation over dao, more attention should be given to the contentious heteroglossia underneath the monological surface of many texts, to the canonized masters' role as rhetorical critics of their time, and to the politics of criteria and argumentation that penetrated to the very core of their discursive practices.

A recognition of the acutely terministic and agonistic character of philosophizing has led to the perception of a dilemma in philosophical debates: differing positions are capable of being maintained only at the expense of ‘mutual unintelligibility,’ and a real ‘contact of minds’ could never be achieved without one side of the controversy abandoning its position and the enabling argumentative tension ceasing to exist. This perception is sustainable, however, only if we continue to accept the assumption that a direct, unmediated confrontation (...) between disputants personifying two sets of rigidly defined terms is the mode of philosophical argumentation. A triadic rather than diadic conception of a typical debate between opposing schools of thought, which differentiates between the opponent and the audience, would address the theoretical misgivings caused by the perceived predicament. (shrink)

Although not generally regarded as a significant area of inquiry, the condensation of argumentative structures and the presence of `miniaturized' yet self-sufficient arguments in stand-alone, sub-discursive linguistic units, especially those below the level of a compound sentence, deserve a close look. Built skillfully into key words, catchy phrases, subtly appealing tropes, etc., these condensed arguments are often instrumental in accounting for the way some small linguistic units work magic on the audience. Taking such mini structures seriously holds two promises for (...) argumentation studies: a widened scope of investigation and a unique contribution to the understanding of how rhetorical effects are being produced at the sub-syntactic or lexical level. (shrink)

A ‘community of minds’ has long been presumed to be a condition of possibility for genuine argumentative interactions. In part because of this disciplinary presupposition, argumentation scholars tend to exclude from their scope of inquiry conflict resolution among culturally heterogeneous and ideologically incompatible formations. Such a stance needs to be reexamined in view of recent developments in the on-going process of globalization. The unprecedented worldwide economic and financial integration has created for the first time a ‘generalized interest’ across national and (...) continental boundaries. The need to countercheck global market forces has given rise to calls for a ‘global legal/ethical system’ or even a ‘transnational public sphere.’ Non-Western interlocutors in general are willing to debate cross-cultural issues in Western terms. Increasingly, Western interlocutors are also seeking to justify Western positions in non-Western terms. This emerging situation renders it both necessary and possible to argue across the boundaries of communities that do not share the same cultural or rhetorical tradition. It also poses a host of theoretical and practical issues whose exploration and analysis should become a new focus of argumentation studies. (shrink)