Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Philosophy Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Conference

Reasonableness

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Philosophy

On The Objectivity Of Norms Of Argumentation, Michael Hoppmann May 2016

On The Objectivity Of Norms Of Argumentation, Michael Hoppmann

OSSA Conference Archive

This paper addresses the relationship between norms of reasoning and norms of politeness: To what extend can one be polite and reasonable at the same time? For this purpose, a normative system of reasoning (i.e. the model of the pragma-dialectical critical discussion) is contrasted with a normative system of politeness (Leech’s Politeness Maxims). If and when they are in conflict: How can the communicator solve this tension?


What Should A Normative Theory Of Argumentation Look Like?, Lilian Bermejo-Luque May 2016

What Should A Normative Theory Of Argumentation Look Like?, Lilian Bermejo-Luque

OSSA Conference Archive

Within the epistemological approach to Argumentation Theory, there are two opposing views on what a theory of argumentation should look like. On the one hand, there are those interested in providing epistemological criteria for good argumentation. For these theorists, the main question is "should we accept this claim on the basis of those reasons?". On the other hand, there are those interested in “characterizing” what is good argumentation. For them, the main question is: "does this piece of argumentation count as good argumentation, taking into account the conception of good argumentation that underlies the practice of arguing?". Both accounts assimilate ...


Compromise As Deep Virtue: Evolution And Some Limits Of Argumentation, Philip Rose May 2013

Compromise As Deep Virtue: Evolution And Some Limits Of Argumentation, Philip Rose

OSSA Conference Archive

If argument forms evolve then the possible existence of localized argument forms may create an interpretive impasse between locally distinct argument communities. Appeal to evolutionarily ‘deep’ argument forms may help, but might be strained in cases where emergent argument forms are not reducible to their base conditions. Overcoming such limits presupposes the virtue of compromise, suggesting that compromise may stand as ‘deep virtue’ within argumentative forms of life.


The Virtues Of Reason And The Problem Of Other Minds: Reflections On Argumentation In A New Century, G. Thomas Goodnight May 2013

The Virtues Of Reason And The Problem Of Other Minds: Reflections On Argumentation In A New Century, G. Thomas Goodnight

OSSA Conference Archive

From early modernity, philosophers have engaged in skeptical discussions concerning knowledge of the existence, state, and standing of other minds. The analogical move from self to other unfolds as controversy. This paper reposes the problem as an argumentation predicament and examines analogy as an opening to the study of rhetorical cognition. Rhetorical cognition is identified as a productive process coming to terms with an other through testing sustainable error. The paper explains how self-sustaining risk is theorized by Aristotle’s virtue ethics in the polis. Moral hazard is identified as a threat to modern argument communities.


Rationality, Reasonableness And Informal Logic: A Case Study Of Chaim Perelman, Rongdong Jin, Christopher W. Tindale May 2011

Rationality, Reasonableness And Informal Logic: A Case Study Of Chaim Perelman, Rongdong Jin, Christopher W. Tindale

OSSA Conference Archive

Perelman’s discussion about the distinction and relation between the rational and the reason-able could be seen as an attempt to bring forward a new understanding of rationality. In light of the concep-tion of situated reason, this paper argues that Perelman’s explication of the dialectic of the rational and the reasonable highlights the balance of universality and contexuality, and could contribute a fuller conception of rationality to establishing a solid philosophical foundation for Johnson’s informal logic.


Strategic Manoeuvring In Simultaneous Discussions, Dima Mohammed, Robert C. Rowland May 2011

Strategic Manoeuvring In Simultaneous Discussions, Dima Mohammed, Robert C. Rowland

OSSA Conference Archive

In public political discussions, an accusation of inconsistency can play a role in a number of discussions that run simultaneously. In this paper, I discuss the implications of considering the different simultaneous discussions to which the accusation contributes when examining it. While the different politi-cal considerations derived from these discussions can shed significant light on the strategic function of the accusation, such considerations may also lead to an inconsistent critical evaluation of it.