Constructive Controversy: Rhetoric as Dissensus-oriented Discourse
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Constructive Controversy : Rhetoric as Dissensus-oriented Discourse. / Kock, Christian Erik J.
I: Cogency. Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation, Bind 1, Nr. 1, 2009, s. 89-112.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Constructive Controversy
T2 - Rhetoric as Dissensus-oriented Discourse
AU - Kock, Christian Erik J
N1 - Paper id:: 0718-8285
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - Current theories of argumentation underestimate the difference, emphasizedalready by Aristotle, between theoretical and practical (action-oriented) argumentation.This is exemplified with the argument theories of Toulmin, pragma-dialectics,Habermas, Walton, and Perelman. Since antiquity, rhetoric has defined itself, notas argument designed to “win,” but as action-oriented argument. Several distinctivefeatures of action-oriented argument are identified. One is that its warrants includevalue concepts in audiences, implying an element of subjectivity in argument assessment.Between individuals, but also inside each individual, several conflicting valuedimensions are typically involved, not just the dimension of truth-falsity, which makessustained, reasonable dissensus inevitable.
AB - Current theories of argumentation underestimate the difference, emphasizedalready by Aristotle, between theoretical and practical (action-oriented) argumentation.This is exemplified with the argument theories of Toulmin, pragma-dialectics,Habermas, Walton, and Perelman. Since antiquity, rhetoric has defined itself, notas argument designed to “win,” but as action-oriented argument. Several distinctivefeatures of action-oriented argument are identified. One is that its warrants includevalue concepts in audiences, implying an element of subjectivity in argument assessment.Between individuals, but also inside each individual, several conflicting valuedimensions are typically involved, not just the dimension of truth-falsity, which makessustained, reasonable dissensus inevitable.
M3 - Journal article
VL - 1
SP - 89
EP - 112
JO - Cogency
JF - Cogency
SN - 0718-8285
IS - 1
ER -
ID: 14912582