ror.org/02y5xdw18
Abstracts
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to highlight an interdependence between procedural and agential norms that undermines their neat separation when appraising argumentation. Drawing on the munāẓara tradition, we carve a space for sequencing in argumentation scholarship. Focusing on the antagonist’s sequencing of critical moves, we identify each sequence’s corresponding values of argumentation: coalescence, reliability, and efficacy. These values arise through the mediation of virtues and simultaneously underpin procedural as well as agential norms. Consequently, an ambiguity between procedure and agent becomes apparent. This ambiguity hints at the potential for a virtue theory of argumentation that draws on procedural norms.
Keywords:
- sequencing,
- critical moves,
- values of argumentation,
- munāẓara,
- argumentative virtues and vices
Résumé
L'objectif de cet article est de mettre en évidence une interdépendance entre les normes procédurales et agentielles qui mine leur séparation nette lors de l'évaluation de l'argumentation. En nous appuyant sur la tradition munāẓara, nous créons un espace pour le séquençage dans les publications sur l'argumentation. En nous concentrant sur l'enchaînement des mouvements critiques de l'antagoniste, nous identifions la valeur d'argumentation correspondante de chaque séquence : coalescence, fiabilité et efficacité. Ces valeurs naissent par la médiation des vertus et sous-tendent simultanément les normes procédurales et agentielles. Par conséquent, une ambiguïté entre la procédure et l'agent devient apparente. Cette ambiguïté suggère le développement d'une théorie de la vertu de l'argumentation qui s'appuie sur les normes procédurales.
Download the article in PDF to read it. Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2010. Virtue in argument. Argumentation 24(2): 165-79.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2014. In defence of virtue: The legitimacy of agent-based argu-ment appraisal. Informal Logic 34(1): 77-93.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Aberdein, Andrew and Daniel H. Cohen. 2016. Introduction: Virtues and arguments. Topoi 35(2): 339-43.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- al-Āmidī, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. 1900. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ʿalā al-Waladiyyah. Is-tanbul: Dersaadet.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- al-Dabūsī, ʻAbdallāh Ibn-ʻUmar. 2001. Taqwīm al-adilla fī uṣūl al-fiqh. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmīya.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- al-Jaunpūrī, ’Abd al-Ras̲ḥīd. 2006. Sharḥ al Rasḥīdīya. Maktabat al-Īmān.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- al-Samarqandī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad. 1934. Risāla fī Ādāb al-Baḥth. In Al-Badr al-ʿIllāt, ed. Maḥmūd al-Imām al-Manṣūrī. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Saʿāda.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- al-Samarqandī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad. 2014. Qisṭās al-Afkār fī Taḥqīq al-Asrār. Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Yayınları.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Arif, Syamsuddin. 2020. The art of debate in Islam: Textual analysis and translation of Ṭaşköprüzade’s Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓarah. Jurnal Akidah & Pemikiran Islam 22(1): 187-216.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Belhaj, Abdessamad. 2016. Ādāb al-Baḥth wa-al-Munāẓara: The neglected art of disputation in later medieval Islam. Arabic Sciences and Philoso-phy 26(2): 291-307.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Biro, John and Harvey Siegel. 2006. In defense of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation. Informal Logic 26(1): 91-101.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Blair, J. Anthony. 1998. The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation. 12(2): 325-339.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Cevdet Paşa, Ahmet. 1998. Miyâr-ı Sedâd. In Mantık Metinleri 2, ed. Kudred Büyükcoşkun. İstanbul: Ravza.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Cohen, Daniel H. and George Miller. 2016. What virtue argumentation theory misses: The case of compathetic argumentation. Topoi 35(2): 451-60.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Dutilh Novaes, Catarina. 2021. Who’s afraid of adversariality? Conflict and cooperation in argumentation. Topoi 40(5): 873-86.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Eemeren, Frans van and Rob Grootendorst. 2003. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Faytre, Leonard Jean Charles. 2018. “Münazara” and the internal dimen-sion of argumentation ethics: A translation and commentary on Ahmed Cevdet’s Adab-i Sedad in the light of Sufism and western argumentation theories. Ibn Haldun University.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- El-Rouayheb, Khaled. 2015. Islamic intellectual history in the seventeenth century: Scholarly currents in the Ottoman Empire and the Maghreb. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Johnson, Ralph H. 2003. The dialectical tier revisited. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, eds. Frans H. Van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard and A. Francis-ca Snoeck Henkemans. Dordrecht: Springer NetherlandsGoogle Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Johnson, Ralph H. 2012. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Routledge.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Johnson, Ralph Henry and J. Anthony Blair. 2006. Logical self-defense. Idea. (Original work published 1977)Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Garssen, Bart and Jan Albert van Laar. 2010. A pragma-dialectical re-sponse to objectivist epistemic challenges. Informal Logic 30(2): 122-41.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Gelenbevī, Ismā‘īl. 1934. Gelenbevī alā Ādāb me’ā Ḥāshiyat. Matbaat al-Saʿāda.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Godden, David. 2016. On the priority of agent-based argumentative norms. Topoi 35(2): 345-57.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Güney, Adem. 2010. Critical edition of Kemâl al-din Masud b. Husain al-Shirwani’s work titled Sharh Âdâb al-Samarqandi. Sakarya Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 51.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Krabbe, Erik C. W. and Jan Albert van Laar. 2011. The ways of criticism. Argumentation 25(2): 199-227.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Laar, Jan Albert van and Erik C. W. Krabbe. 2013. The burden of criti-cism: Consequences of taking a critical stance. Argumentation 27(2): 201-24.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Laar, Jan Albert van. 2001. Ambiguity in a dialectical perspective. Infor-mal Logic 21(3).Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lumer, Christoph. 1988. The disputation—a special type of cooperative argumentative dialogue. Argumentation 2(4): 441-64.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lumer, Christoph. 2005a. The epistemological theory of argument–how and why? Informal Logic 25(3): 213-243.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lumer, Christoph. 2005b. Introduction: The epistemological approach to argumenta-tion–A map. Informal Logic 25(3): 189-212.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Mullā Ḥanafī, Muḥammad. 2014. Sharḥ al-Mullā Ḥanafī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmīyah.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Pehlivan, Necmettin and Hadi Ensar Ceylan. 2015. Ādābu’l-Bahs Devrimine Doğru Son Evrim: Burhānuddīn en-Nesefī’nin el-Fusūl’ü. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 56(2): 1-76.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Ṣabbān, Muḥammad. 2014. Ḥāshiya ʿAllāma Ṣabbān. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmīyah.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Stevens, Katharina and Daniel Cohen. 2019. The attraction of the ideal has no traction on the real: On adversariality and roles in argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 55(1): 1-23.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Stevens, Katharina and Daniel H. Cohen. 2020. Angelic devil’s advocates and the forms of adversariality. Topoi. 1-14.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Taiai, Maria and Rahmi Oruç. 2021. Uses, motives, functions, and virtues of silence in argumentation in light of Jadal and Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓarah. Afkar-Jurnal Akidah & Pemikiran Islam 23(2): 225-248.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Ṭāshkubrīzāde. 2012. Risāla al-Ādāb fī Ādāb al-Baḥth wa al-Munāẓarah. Quwait: Dār al-Ẓāhiriyyah.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Üzelgün, Mehmet Ali, Maria Fernandes-Jesus and Önder Küçükural. 2022. Reception of climate activist messages by low-carbon transition actors: Argument evasion in the carbon offsetting debate. Argumentation and Advocacy 58(2): 102-22.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Young, Walter Edward. 2017. The dialectical forge, vol. 9. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Young, Walter Edward. 2018. Al-Samarqandī’s third Masʾala: Juridical dialectic governed by the Ādāb al-Baḥth. Oriens 46(1-2): 62-128.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar