Scott Stroud has a new book out on Kant and rhetoric. The RSA’s announcement about the volume can be found here: New Book on Kant and Rhetoric | The Blogora.
Archive for the ‘Rhetoric’ Category
The latest issue of the journal Cogency is now available! Most articles are open access pdf downloads. Do check it out!
From the Journal homepage:
In Greek mythology, Eris is the goddess of discord, strife, and quarrel. Aesop warned that Eris should be left undisturbed since combating Eris could cause it to intensify. However, Hesiod recognized Eris’s second nature as a force of progress and improvement, the noble competition. Argumentation and debate can regulate Eris and prioritize its second positive nature, sometimes leading to the solution or dissolution of the dispute.
The purpose of Eris is to refine and reflect on theory and practice of argumentation and debate. It seeks to attract and promote theoretical, empirical, and educational contributions on argumentation and debate from several perspectives (philosophical, rhetorical, educational, psychological, among others) with a focus on both their function to regulate conflicts and disagreements and their epistemic function.
Therefore, we invite you to submit paper proposals for the next issues of Eris. Italian, English, French and Spanish papers will be accepted for peer review.
For paper guidelines, please check the website: Eris.
CALL FOR PANELS/PAPERS
“BUILDING CONSENSUS. RHETORIC BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND CONFLICT”
Palermo, 15-18th April 2015
The aim of this conference is to encourage an interdisciplinary investigation of the role of rhetoric and discursive processes in the realization of democracy and its eventual degenerations. In the contemporary debate on this topic, there seems to be a polarization between two different conceptions of democracy: the “deliberative” one and the “agonistic” one. The first one is related to the classical tradition that considers Habermas as its reference point. This conception emphasizes the role of rational deliberation as a means to produce a legitimate and binding consensus. Instead, the second one draws its inspiration from C. Schmitt, and considers conflict and disagreement as unavoidable conditions of democratic life. Despite their obvious differences, these two theoretical models have a conception of rhetoric in common that is subjected to, or at least separated from, the full exercise of argumentative rationality. Nevertheless, an interpretation of rhetoric that includes the logical-argumentative dimension in the rhetorical domain is possible. In this way, the recovery of rhetoric, considered both as a practice and as a theory of persuasive speech, may shed light on the role of discursive processes in building consensus, and thus might allow a revision of the dialectical tension between the pairs of concepts that the debate tends to focus on: normative/descriptive, rational/irrational, agreement/conflict. Starting from this theoretical framework, the organizers hope to receive papers with a theoretical or historical character that come from different disciplines and perspectives, including: rhetoric, philosophy of language, philosophy of politics, argumentation theory, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, and political science.
- Luciano Canfora (University of Bari)
- Chantal Mouffe (University of Westminster)
- Paolo Virno (Universitày of Roma III)
The conference will be organized by EIKOS. International Research Group on Rhetoric and hosted by The Department of the Humanistic Sciences at the University of Palermo in cooperation with the International Center for Philosophical Research (CRF).
Conference Proceedings will be published in EPEKEINA. International Journal of Ontology. History and Critics, Vol. 7, n. 2/2016.
For more information visit the conference website:
Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
Budzynska Katarzyna, van Eemeren Frans H., Koszowy Marcin, “Preface: From Pragmatics and Dialectics to Argument Studies”
PART I: SPEECH ACTS AND ARGUMENTS
Searle John R., “The Structure and Functions of Language”
Snoeck Henkemans A., Francisca, “Speech Act Theory and the Study of Argumentation”
Andone, Corina, “Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof: Confrontational Strategies in Dealing with Political Accountability”
Goodwin, Jean, “Conceptions of Speech Acts in the Theory and Practice of Argumentation: A Case Study of a Debate about Advocating”
PART II: ARGUMENTATION IN A DIALOGUE
Simons Peter, “Linguistic Complexity and Argumentative Unity: A Lvov-Warsaw School Supplement”
Mackenzie Jim, “From Speech Acts to Semantics”
Jacquette Dale, “Collective Referential Intentionality in the Semantics of Dialogue”
Botting David, “Without Qualification: an Inquiry into the Secundum Quid”
Wells Simon, “Supporting Argumentation Schemes in Argumentative Dialogue Games”
Lewiński Marcin, “Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies”
PART III: DISCUSSION PAPERS
van Laar Jan Albert,”Motivated Doubts: A Comment on Walton’s Theory of Criticism”
Szymanek Krzysztof, “Justification and Argumentation”
Forgács Gábor,”Strategic Manoeuvring and the Selection of Starting Points in the Pragma-Dialectical Framework”
All papers are available as open access, pdf downloads at the Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric homepage
Vol 34, No 2 (2014)
Table of Contents
Rhetoric, Dialectic and Logic: The Wild-Goose Chase for an Essential Distinction (152-166), Charlotte Jørgensen
The Authority of Citations and Quotations in Academic Papers (167-191), Begoña Carrascal
Throwing the Baby Out with the Water: From Reasonably Scrutinizing Authorities to Rampant Scepticism About Expertise (192-218), Markus Seidel
Meta-argumentation, An Approach to Logic and Argumentation Theory (219-239), J. Anthony Blair
All articles available online, open access: Informal Logic: Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice