1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Argumentation in Context
  4. Volume 8, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Philosophical argumentation presents a puzzle for pragma-dialectics: both from the perspective of 2500 years of history and from what we can ourselves witness in the present, philosophers seem to be exclusively intent on strengthening and elaborating their differences of opinion. Nothing like that happens in other academic endeavors. This is an anomaly in pragma-dialectical terms because, if philosophical discussants do not want to resolve their differences of opinion, then they would seem to be unreasonable by definition. In other words, no critical discussion would be possible in philosophy because of the peculiar way philosophers argue. The anomaly can, however, be dispelled by using the elementary distinction between single and multiple differences of opinion. It is argued that, in spite of occasional appearances, philosophical differences of opinion are . From that it is argued that the ‘institutional point’ (van Eemeren, 2010) of philosophy is to create the broadest map of arguable positions. If this is true, then philosophers may after all be pursuing a higher-order kind of consensus, bearing in particular on how many arguments can be marshaled around any given philosophical question.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19007.lea
2019-09-25
2023-09-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19007.lea
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, M. , & Lewiński, M.
    2017 Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation31 (1), 179–207. 10.1007/s10503‑016‑9403‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-016-9403-9 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes, J.
    1969 Aristotle’s theory of demonstration. Phronesis14 (2), 123–152. 10.1163/156852869X00091
     https://doi.org/10.1163/156852869X00091 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blackford, R. , & Broderick, D.
    2017 Philosophy’s future: The problem of philosophical progress. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781119210115
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119210115 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bourget, D. , & Chalmers, D. J.
    2014 What do philosophers believe?Philosophical Studies170 (3), 465–500. 10.1007/s11098‑013‑0259‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0259-7 [Google Scholar]
  5. Burge, T.
    1986 Individualism and psychology. Philosophical Review94 (1), 3–45. 10.2307/2185131
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2185131 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chalmers, D. J.
    2011 Verbal disputes. Philosophical Review120 (4), 515–566. 10.1215/00318108‑1334478
     https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-1334478 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2015 Why isn’t there more progress in philosophy?Philosophy90 (1), 3–31. 10.1017/S0031819114000436
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819114000436 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, A. , & Chalmers, D. J.
    1998 The extended mind. Analysis58 (1), 7–19. 10.1093/analys/58.1.7
     https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  9. Collingwood, R. G.
    1939 An autobiography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Collins, R.
    1998 The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, F. H.
    2010 Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2018 Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham, CH: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferejohn, M.
    1991 The origins of Aristotelian science. New Haven: Yale University Press. 10.2307/j.ctt211qx1c
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt211qx1c [Google Scholar]
  14. Gaos, J.
    1960 De la filosofía [On philosophy]. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Grosjean, M.
    2004 From multi-participant talk to genuine polylogue: Shift-change briefing sessions at the hospital. In Kerbrat-Orecchioni (Ed.) 2004, 25–52. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00035‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00035-3 [Google Scholar]
  16. Harman, G.
    2011 Quentin Meillassoux: Philosophy in the making. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hill, G. N. , & Hill, K. T.
    1995 Real life dictionary of the law. Los Angeles: General Publishing Group.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Hintikka, J.
    1972 On the ingredients of an Aristotelian science. Noûs6 (1), 55–69. 10.2307/2214513
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2214513 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jaspers, K.
    1919 Psychologie der Weltanschauungen. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑05505‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05505-2 [Google Scholar]
  20. Johnstone, H. W., Jr.
    1959 Philosophy and argument. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 1978 Validity and rhetoric in philosophical argument. University Park, PA: The Dialogue Press of Man & World.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Kant, I.
    1781 Critik der reinen Vernunft. Riga: Hartknoch.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.
    (Ed.) 2004 Polylogue. Special issue of theJournal of Pragmatics36 (1), 1–145. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00034‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00034-1 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kusch, M.
    1995 Psychologism: A case study in the sociology of philosophical knowledge. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Ladyman, J., & Ross, D.
    (2007) Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276196.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276196.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lewiński, M.
    2014a Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation28 (2), 161–185. 10.1007/s10503‑013‑9307‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x [Google Scholar]
  27. 2014b Practical reasoning in argumentative polylogues. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación8, 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Marcoccia, M.
    2004 On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. In Kerbrat-Orecchioni (Ed.) 2004, 115–145. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00038‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  29. Menary, R.
    2010 Introduction: The extended mind in focus. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp.1–25). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262014038.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262014038.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Overgaard, S. , Gilbert, P. , & Burwood, S.
    2013 An introduction to metaphilosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139018043
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139018043 [Google Scholar]
  31. Passmore, J.
    1961 Philosophical reasoning. New York: Scribner.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Pigliucci, M.
    2017 The nature of philosophy: How philosophy makes progress and why it matters. New York: Author (Amazon Kindle).
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Putnam, H.
    1975 Philosophical papers, vol. 2: Mind, language, and reality. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511625251
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625251 [Google Scholar]
  34. Redding, P.
    2007 Analytic philosophy and the return of Hegelian thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511487620
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487620 [Google Scholar]
  35. Rescher, N.
    1978 Philosophical disagreement: An essay towards orientational pluralism in metaphilosophy. The Review of Metaphysics32 (2), 217–251.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 1985 The strife of systems: An essay on the grounds and implications of philosophical diversity. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2001 Philosophical reasoning: A study in the methodology of philosophizing. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Stoljar, D.
    2017 Philosophical progress: In defence of a reasonable optimism. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198802099.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198802099.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Strawson, G.
    2004a A fallacy of our age. The Times Literary Supplement, October15.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 2004b Against narrativity. Ratio (new series) XVII, 428–452. 10.1111/j.1467‑9329.2004.00264.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9329.2004.00264.x [Google Scholar]
  41. 2018 Things that bother me: Death, freedom, the self, etc.New York: New York Review Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Weber, Z.
    (Ed.) 2011 Philosophy’s future. Special Issue of Essays in Philosophy12 (https://commons.pacificu.edu/eip/).
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Williamson, T.
    2018 Doing philosophy: From common curiosity to logical reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19007.lea
Loading
On philosophical argumentation
Journal of Argumentation in Context 8, 173 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19007.lea
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19007.lea
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.19007.lea
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): differences of opinion; institutional point; mixed/non-mixed; philosophical argumentation; questions; single/multiple

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error