Page 260 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 260
What Do We Know about the World?
important one. In fact, in the classical and holistic account, the means
of knowledge are not limited to a purely abstract dimension (reason in
the Cartesian meaning of the word), because they deal with the totality
of human being: logos (language-thinking), pathos (body and emotions)
and ethos (will).
Other features of rhetorical argumentation are those given by the
capabilities of making a discourse easy to understand (by using linguistic
means such as metaphors, examples, figures, evocative words or phras-
es etc.) and rationally approvable (by using commonplaces [topoi] wide-
ly shared and/or based on experts’ opinion [memoria], arranged in a cer-
tain order [dispositio], assisted by empirical evidences [causae] etc.). This
phase of argumentation is especially devoted to the creation of effective
grounds for legal reasoning: the actors want to suggest to the judge a way
of building normative and factual premises, along with a logic connec-
tion between them.
The last part of rhetorical work is dedicated to the confutation of
the opponent’s argument (confutatio). This engagement is typically di-
alectical: the actor must show the audience that all (or at least some) of
the adversary’s premises are based on unacceptable (or at least less ac-
ceptable) grounds or that even if they may be acceptable, they are badly
connected (and consequently the conclusion is unacceptable). Such con-
duct could seem extremely conflicting and socially dangerous to some
scholars of legal sociology, but it is not, because counter-argumentation
should be regarded from every perspective as a sort of “public acknowl-
edgement” of the adversary’s full dignity to stand in front of his/her ri-
val as a peer. What else, in fact, is the counter-arguer going to do, if not
treat his/her opponent as real and effective, critically analyzing his/her
discourse, if only for the purpose of showing how wrong it is?
8. A Logical Method for Legal Reasoning
The dialectical level of legal argumentation is performed in the trial
not only by the debating parties but also by the judge, in order to check
their premises and conclusions. When balancing the two “legal syl-
logisms” advanced by the parties, the judge is definitely charged with
choosing among a variety of logic elements (standpoints, values, inter-
pretations, descriptions etc.) which cannot remain – partially or total-
ly – together.
It is at such a stage that the (serious) judge looks at the arguments
at stake and contemplates how to build his/her own reasoning. A com-
important one. In fact, in the classical and holistic account, the means
of knowledge are not limited to a purely abstract dimension (reason in
the Cartesian meaning of the word), because they deal with the totality
of human being: logos (language-thinking), pathos (body and emotions)
and ethos (will).
Other features of rhetorical argumentation are those given by the
capabilities of making a discourse easy to understand (by using linguistic
means such as metaphors, examples, figures, evocative words or phras-
es etc.) and rationally approvable (by using commonplaces [topoi] wide-
ly shared and/or based on experts’ opinion [memoria], arranged in a cer-
tain order [dispositio], assisted by empirical evidences [causae] etc.). This
phase of argumentation is especially devoted to the creation of effective
grounds for legal reasoning: the actors want to suggest to the judge a way
of building normative and factual premises, along with a logic connec-
tion between them.
The last part of rhetorical work is dedicated to the confutation of
the opponent’s argument (confutatio). This engagement is typically di-
alectical: the actor must show the audience that all (or at least some) of
the adversary’s premises are based on unacceptable (or at least less ac-
ceptable) grounds or that even if they may be acceptable, they are badly
connected (and consequently the conclusion is unacceptable). Such con-
duct could seem extremely conflicting and socially dangerous to some
scholars of legal sociology, but it is not, because counter-argumentation
should be regarded from every perspective as a sort of “public acknowl-
edgement” of the adversary’s full dignity to stand in front of his/her ri-
val as a peer. What else, in fact, is the counter-arguer going to do, if not
treat his/her opponent as real and effective, critically analyzing his/her
discourse, if only for the purpose of showing how wrong it is?
8. A Logical Method for Legal Reasoning
The dialectical level of legal argumentation is performed in the trial
not only by the debating parties but also by the judge, in order to check
their premises and conclusions. When balancing the two “legal syl-
logisms” advanced by the parties, the judge is definitely charged with
choosing among a variety of logic elements (standpoints, values, inter-
pretations, descriptions etc.) which cannot remain – partially or total-
ly – together.
It is at such a stage that the (serious) judge looks at the arguments
at stake and contemplates how to build his/her own reasoning. A com-
