Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp.173–194

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

On philosophical argumentation

Towards a pragma-dialectical solution of a puzzle

 | University of Guadalajara, Mexico
Published online: 25 September 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19007.lea
Abstract
Philosophical argumentation presents a puzzle for pragma-dialectics: both from the perspective of 2500 years of history and from what we can ourselves witness in the present, philosophers seem to be exclusively intent on strengthening and elaborating their differences of opinion. Nothing like that happens in other academic endeavors. This is an anomaly in pragma-dialectical terms because, if philosophical discussants do not want to resolve their differences of opinion, then they would seem to be unreasonable by definition. In other words, no critical discussion would be possible in philosophy because of the peculiar way philosophers argue. The anomaly can, however, be dispelled by using the elementary distinction between single and multiple differences of opinion. It is argued that, in spite of occasional appearances, all philosophical differences of opinion are multiple. From that it is argued that the ‘institutional point’ (Eemeren, F. H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) of philosophy is to create the broadest map of arguable positions. If this is true, then philosophers may after all be pursuing a higher-order kind of consensus, bearing in particular on how many arguments can be marshaled around any given philosophical question.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The pragma-dialectical concept of a disagreement
  • 3.First example: Dante, Aristotle, and others
  • 4.A few contemporary examples
  • 5.The proposed solution to the puzzle
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (43)
References
Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. 2017. Advancing polylogical analysis of large-scale argumentation: Disagreement management in the fracking controversy. Argumentation 31 (1), 179–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 1969. Aristotle’s theory of demonstration. Phronesis 14 (2), 123–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blackford, R., & Broderick, D. 2017. Philosophy’s future: The problem of philosophical progress. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bourget, D., & Chalmers, D. J. 2014. What do philosophers believe? Philosophical Studies 170 (3), 465–500. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burge, T. 1986. Individualism and psychology. Philosophical Review 94 (1), 3–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. 2011. Verbal disputes. Philosophical Review 120 (4), 515–566. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. Why isn’t there more progress in philosophy? Philosophy 90 (1), 3–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. J. 1998. The extended mind. Analysis 58 (1), 7–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. 1939. An autobiography. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, R. 1998. The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham, CH: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferejohn, M. 1991. The origins of Aristotelian science. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaos, J. 1960. De la filosofía [On philosophy]. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grosjean, M. 2004. From multi-participant talk to genuine polylogue: Shift-change briefing sessions at the hospital. In Kerbrat-Orecchioni (Ed.), 2004, 25–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harman, G. 2011. Quentin Meillassoux: Philosophy in the making. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hill, G. N., & Hill, K. T. 1995. Real life dictionary of the law. Los Angeles: General Publishing Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. 1972. On the ingredients of an Aristotelian science. Noûs 6 (1), 55–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaspers, K. 1919. Psychologie der Weltanschauungen. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, H. W., Jr. 1959. Philosophy and argument. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1978. Validity and rhetoric in philosophical argument. University Park, PA: The Dialogue Press of Man & World.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1781. Critik der reinen Vernunft. Riga: Hartknoch.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (Ed.) 2004. Polylogue. Special issue of the Journal of Pragmatics 36 (1), 1–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kusch, M. 1995. Psychologism: A case study in the sociology of philosophical knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. 2014a. Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation 28 (2), 161–185. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2014b. Practical reasoning in argumentative polylogues. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación 81, 1–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcoccia, M. 2004. On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. In Kerbrat-Orecchioni (Ed.), 2004, 115–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Menary, R. 2010. Introduction: The extended mind in focus. In R. Menary (Ed.), The extended mind (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Overgaard, S., Gilbert, P., & Burwood, S. 2013. An introduction to metaphilosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Passmore, J. 1961. Philosophical reasoning. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pigliucci, M. 2017. The nature of philosophy: How philosophy makes progress and why it matters. New York: Author (Amazon Kindle).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975. Philosophical papers, vol. 2: Mind, language, and reality. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Redding, P. 2007. Analytic philosophy and the return of Hegelian thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rescher, N. 1978. Philosophical disagreement: An essay towards orientational pluralism in metaphilosophy. The Review of Metaphysics 32 (2), 217–251.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1985. The strife of systems: An essay on the grounds and implications of philosophical diversity. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. Philosophical reasoning: A study in the methodology of philosophizing. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stoljar, D. 2017. Philosophical progress: In defence of a reasonable optimism. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strawson, G. 2004a. A fallacy of our age. The Times Literary Supplement, October 15.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004b. Against narrativity. Ratio (new series) XVII1, 428–452. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. Things that bother me: Death, freedom, the self, etc. New York: New York Review Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weber, Z. (Ed.) 2011. Philosophy’s future. Special Issue of Essays in Philosophy 121 ([URL]).
Williamson, T. 2018. Doing philosophy: From common curiosity to logical reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Sarıhan, Işık
2023. Problems with Publishing Philosophical Claims We Don't Believe. Episteme 20:2 ► pp. 449 ff. DOI logo
Sarıhan, Işık
2024. Disagreement and Progress in Philosophy and in Empirical Sciences. Social Epistemology ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Leal, Fernando
2022. Is Natural Selection in Trouble? When Emotions Run High in a Philosophical Debate. Argumentation 36:4 ► pp. 541 ff. DOI logo
Leal, Fernando & Hubert Marraud
2022. Final Cross-Examination. In How Philosophers Argue [Argumentation Library, 41], ► pp. 437 ff. DOI logo
Leal, Fernando & Hubert Marraud
2022. Description of the Method Followed. In How Philosophers Argue [Argumentation Library, 41], ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Leal, Fernando & Hubert Marraud
2022. Analysis of Segment IV: Discussion of Copleston’s Moral Argument. In How Philosophers Argue [Argumentation Library, 41], ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Leal Carretero, Fernando Miguel
2020. ¿Qué es una postura en filosofía? Un enfoque pragma-dialéctico. Revista Iberoamericana de Argumentación :21 ► pp. 86 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue