ARGUMENTATİON METHODS


People use argumentation for the sake of making decisions, solving problems and generally managing disagreements. (Wenzel 15) There are three primary argumentation methods: Logical, dialectical and rhetorical.


Logical argumentation is used when a compulsory product exist. Remember the famous argumentation quote:

All people are mortal.

Socrates is a person.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The product is compulsory when other premises are accepted. The first and second premises are not about logic. Other disciplines are busy with their trueness and wrongness. The logic appears in the third sentence. Moreover, logical argumentation cannot be used in normative judgement, because normative sentences, like “you should do it”, is valid when free will or choosing exist. Where choosing is mentioned, necessity does not exist. Thus, logical argumentation does not work there.


Dialectical argumentation is a procedure and based on consensus. Claimants try to come to an agreement by using pieces of evidence. “Think about “parliamentary procedure” or “courtroom procedure” as examples of this viewpoint”. (Wenzel 16). However, it is not a logical process, because there is not a necessity in the process. For example, juries try to find the murderer in the case of a murder, but killing a person is not created by a murderer compulsorily. That is why, juries must look at the pieces of evidence, not the premises. Although some outcome can be certain in the procedure of dialectical, the outcome is not compulsory.

    Rhetorical argumentation is the process of telling any judgements. The main point is the way of persuasion, but there is a misunderstanding at this point. Persuasion does not have to be deceptive. What we need to remember at this point is that believing and understanding are psychological processes. For example, we cannot know whether sentences are understood by audiences similarly. We need to express our thought in a clear way. Rhetoric also works at this point. Generally, normative sentences are used based on rhetorical argumentation, because they do not carry necessity and certainty.



Adab al munazarah wa’l bahs is the multiplex understaing of the argumentation. There are two subjects in the argumentation: claimant and questioner. Claimant has claim, argument, premises and conclusion. Questioner have objection, integral-refutation, counter-argumentation. On the other hand, there are two kinds of argumentation: Munazara and Jadal. Munazara is done when the aim of argumentation is unveiling the truth. Jadal is done when the aim of argumentation is silencing and triumphing over the opponent. As we see, the classification is done depending on people.


Comparing them: One classification of logic, dialectic and rhetoric is done depending on the method of reaching the truth. In that case, they are methods. The other classification of them is done in terms of stages of only one argumentation. In that case, rhetoric is the usage of language. 

Dialectic plays a role in the ordering and stating premises. Logical play a role in the only product.Logic is about necessity. Dialectic is about consensus and certainty. Rhetoric is about persuasion.

While Logical, dialectical and rhetorical argumentation focuses on the method of argumentation independently from people, multiplexity adds them to consider claimants and questioner’s situation. The argumentation method of the multiplex understanding can change depending on the questioner in terms of his capacity and intention.



 Bibliography

- Wenzel, Joseph W. “Three Perspectives on Argument: Rhetoric, Dialectic, Logic.” in Robert Trapp and Janice Schuetz, eds. Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede,  9–26.  New York: International Debate Education Association, 2006.


-  Faytre Leonard (2018) “Münazara” and the Internal Dimension of Argumentation Ethics: A Translation and Commentary on Ahmed Cevdet’s Adab-i Sedad In The Light of Sufism and Western Argumentation Theories, Master thesis submitted to Ibn Haldun University - MEDIT - Read Cevdet’s Preface and intro. Pages: 64-66


Yorumlar

Yorum Gönder

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Resim
Dini fıkıh üzerinden öğrenmek veya diğer bir deyişle bizden istenilen veya bize yasaklanan şeyleri hükümler üzerinden öğrenmek dini anlayışta sıkıntı yaratıyor.Farz, vacib,mübah,mekruh gibi sınıflandırmaları fıkıh (bazı hikmetlerden dolayı) kullanıyor.  Din fıkıh üzerinden öğrenilmeye başlayınca da şöyle bir algı oluşuyor:Sanki bu sınıflandırmalar hep vardı ve Kuran da uyulmasını istediği şeyleri bu sınıflandırmaya dahil etti.Her bir fiili veya durumu bu sınıflandırma içerisine sokmakla yetindi. Mesela dedi ki; namaz kılmak farzdır. Şu günahtır, bu günahtır vb. Hal böyle olunca kelama muhatap olma yahut "kelamı anlama", "kelamın içerisindeki hükmü anlama" ile eşitleniyor. Halbuki ayetlerin anlamı ile hükümler arasında çok fark var. Direkt ayetlere geçmeden önce sadece hüküm ve kelam arasındaki farktan bile mesele anlaşılabilir.Mesela bir öğretmen tarafından söylenilen “Sabah okula vaktinde gelin.” cümlesi ile “Okula vaktinde gelmek zorunludur.” yazılı bir metin aras...
Devamı
Resim
  Criticising Of Ibn Khaldun’ Ideas On   Relationship Between Word And Meaning  Ibn Khaldun claims that "Poetry and prose work with words, and not with ideas. The ideas are secondary to the (words). The (words) are basic." ( Ibn Khaldun 782) He shows three proof for it. First one is that meanings are the same, but words are different. We need to learn how to use words. The second one is that the mind does not need to be trained. The last one is that memorising allows people to "taste" eloquence. I will evaluate these three claims by giving a couple of example from some books and ideas. Firstly, many scholars such as Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani*1 -language scholar- and Said Nursi*2 disagree with Ibn Khaldun on the point of the relationship between words and ideas". Roughly, Ibn Khaldun exemplifies that although water (meaning) is the same, bowls (words)are different, the important one is bowl because bowls should be appropriate for water ( Ibn Khaldun 782)....
Devamı