Page 30 - 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. 30
What Do We Know about the World?
Historically, this aspect of argument has been better recognized by
rhetoric than logic. It understands an argument as a vehicle of persua-
sion, and a strong argument as a successful attempt to persuade an in-
tended audience of some point of view. Logic suggests that a good ar-
guer constructs an argument by assembling premises they know (or
think they know) to be true. Rhetoric proposes a fundamentally dif-
ferent approach, suggesting that an arguer begin by analyzing the au-
dience to which their argument is directed, and by looking for premis-
es that this audience finds acceptable. In real life circumstances, this has
always been the strategy of adept arguers, who tailor their arguments to
the audiences they address. Among other things, this implies that an ar-
guer should use different premises when they address different audienc-
es. If one wishes to argue that nationalism is an evil (or a boon), this sug-
gests that one should use different arguments when one addresses Cro-
atians, Mexican Americans, Indigenous people in Canada, Swedes, the
United Nations, conservatives, libertarians, the so called “universal au-
dience,” and so on.
In the attempt to create a truly general theory of argument, these
considerations make audience a key component of argumentation which
is missing logic’s account of argument. The easiest way to rectify this
shortcoming is as Aristotle suggests in his Rhetoric: by understanding
a successful argument as one that is logically impeccable and construct-
ed in a manner that successfully addresses its audience’s beliefs and con-
victions (their pathos). If one wishes to be a successful arguer, this means
that it is not enough to employ premises one believes to be acceptable;
one must go further and find premises that are acceptable to the audi-
ence one addresses. Creating a thick theory that recognizes this can dis-
sipate some of the tension between logical and rhetorical conceptions of
argument, accommodating key components of both in a “rhetorically
enhanced” theory that recognizes audience as an element of successful
argument. In the present context, I will treat this view of argument as a
second step towards a thick theory that allows us to analyze and judge an
argument from the point of view of logic (the acceptability of the prem-
ises, the strength of an inference, etc.) and/or the rhetorical requirement
that it speak to the audience it addresses.
4. Step Three: Argument in its Dialectical Context
Insofar as rhetoric highlights the role of audience in argument, it
identifies one facet of an argument’s context which must be recognized
by a thick theory. One finds another in an argument’s relationship to op-
Historically, this aspect of argument has been better recognized by
rhetoric than logic. It understands an argument as a vehicle of persua-
sion, and a strong argument as a successful attempt to persuade an in-
tended audience of some point of view. Logic suggests that a good ar-
guer constructs an argument by assembling premises they know (or
think they know) to be true. Rhetoric proposes a fundamentally dif-
ferent approach, suggesting that an arguer begin by analyzing the au-
dience to which their argument is directed, and by looking for premis-
es that this audience finds acceptable. In real life circumstances, this has
always been the strategy of adept arguers, who tailor their arguments to
the audiences they address. Among other things, this implies that an ar-
guer should use different premises when they address different audienc-
es. If one wishes to argue that nationalism is an evil (or a boon), this sug-
gests that one should use different arguments when one addresses Cro-
atians, Mexican Americans, Indigenous people in Canada, Swedes, the
United Nations, conservatives, libertarians, the so called “universal au-
dience,” and so on.
In the attempt to create a truly general theory of argument, these
considerations make audience a key component of argumentation which
is missing logic’s account of argument. The easiest way to rectify this
shortcoming is as Aristotle suggests in his Rhetoric: by understanding
a successful argument as one that is logically impeccable and construct-
ed in a manner that successfully addresses its audience’s beliefs and con-
victions (their pathos). If one wishes to be a successful arguer, this means
that it is not enough to employ premises one believes to be acceptable;
one must go further and find premises that are acceptable to the audi-
ence one addresses. Creating a thick theory that recognizes this can dis-
sipate some of the tension between logical and rhetorical conceptions of
argument, accommodating key components of both in a “rhetorically
enhanced” theory that recognizes audience as an element of successful
argument. In the present context, I will treat this view of argument as a
second step towards a thick theory that allows us to analyze and judge an
argument from the point of view of logic (the acceptability of the prem-
ises, the strength of an inference, etc.) and/or the rhetorical requirement
that it speak to the audience it addresses.
4. Step Three: Argument in its Dialectical Context
Insofar as rhetoric highlights the role of audience in argument, it
identifies one facet of an argument’s context which must be recognized
by a thick theory. One finds another in an argument’s relationship to op-
