Argumentation and rhetoric

Question 1

Lecture 1:

Argumentation draw itself from 3 roots of disciplines: rhetoric, logic and dialectic.

Answer 1

in rhetoric (修辞学）, the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, we draw our attention from audience’s concerns, focusing on how people together create and develop knowledge, how messages influence people. it’s about analytic skills. we have to recognize predispositions of audience to know where they are.

Question 2

logic concerns about all structures of reasoning.

Answer 2

dialectic (辩证法): the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions. inquiry into metaphysical contradictions and their solutions. 辩证法是一种化解不同意见的论证方法。它是在两个或更多对一个主题持不同看法的人之间的对话，目的是通过这种有充分理由的对话建立起对事物真理的认知。

Question 3

when we try to induce others to give up their claims to accept our views or to do what we want them to do, this superiority of our opinions and statements over theirs always involves ethical questions. argumentation is about free consent with respect for individuals, not overpowering others.

Answer 3

we should be careful when there are no common frames of references for argument. i.e. between atheist and religious people.

Question 4

five goals:

1. recognize arguments when we see them. to enable us to understand when people argue.
2. be aware of how people make choices when they argue. how their arguments reflect their choices.
3. how to appraise/evaluate arguments: weak, bad, great, strong
4. examine examples
5. sensitize and improve our own analysis of arguments and make arguments.

Answer 4

hui

Question 5

Lecture 2: understand assumptions of argumentation

1. argumentation is audience-dependent. so claims are not universally time-enduring.
2. argumentation takes place under conditions of uncertainty. we don’t argue about things that are certain. the certainty is also audience-dependent. for topics which are uncertain and controversial (i.e. when life begins), we don’t wait for things to come certain and we need to reach some decision under uncertainty.
3. argumentation involves justification for claims. justification is subjective and it’s not equal to something true but rather something that another side should accept/believe it. it’s up to change with light of new information. plausible -> highly probable
4. despite its seemingly adversarial character, argumentation is fundamentally a cooperative enterprise. arguers share the common goal to reach the best decision.
5. argumentation entails risks. you have to take on risks of being shown to be wrong to the audience with bigger purpose of persuading our adversaries while still valuing their personhood.

Answer 5

don’t think of argumentation as a zero sum game.