Wittgenstein and Toulmin’s Model of Argument: The Riddle Explained Away

IF 1 2区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Argumentation Pub Date : 2024-10-18 DOI:10.1007/s10503-024-09637-w
Tomasz Zarębski
{"title":"Wittgenstein and Toulmin’s Model of Argument: The Riddle Explained Away","authors":"Tomasz Zarębski","doi":"10.1007/s10503-024-09637-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The article undertakes the problem of a Wittgensteinian background of Toulmin’s model of argument. While appreciating the original character of the investigations set out by Toulmin in <i>The Uses of Argument</i>, Wittgenstein’s ideas taken to be forerunners of both Toulmin’s philosophical method and the particular elements of the model of substantial argument are traced backward, to Toulmin’s earlier books: <i>The Philosophy of Science</i> (Toulmin, The philosophy of science. An introduction, Hutchinson University Library, London, 1953) and <i>An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics</i> (Toulmin, An examination of the place of reason in ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1950). The technique of pinpointing the constituents of that model in the books preceding <i>The Uses of Argument</i> is superposing the layout of Toulmin’s model on the crucial arguments concerning the earlier books: the scientific one based on Newtonian optics and the moral one concerning keeping promises. Such a procedure allows identifying backing for warrants and argument fields with the methods of representation in <i>The Philosophy of Science</i> and with modes of reasoning in <i>An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics</i>. The former is traced to passages 6.3 ff of Wittgenstein’s <i>Tractatus</i>, while the latter—to the concept of word-games (the later Wittgenstein’s language games). The claim regarding Wittgenstein’s background is that in Toulmin’s view of Wittgenstein, some parts of <i>Tractatus</i> concerning representing are in line with Wittgenstein’s later reflections on language games; as well as that the overall method of <i>The Uses of Argument</i> goes along with Wittgenstein’s therapeutic approach to philosophical problems that have to be placed in the context of their ordinary use.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"38 4","pages":"435 - 455"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-024-09637-w.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-024-09637-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article undertakes the problem of a Wittgensteinian background of Toulmin’s model of argument. While appreciating the original character of the investigations set out by Toulmin in The Uses of Argument, Wittgenstein’s ideas taken to be forerunners of both Toulmin’s philosophical method and the particular elements of the model of substantial argument are traced backward, to Toulmin’s earlier books: The Philosophy of Science (Toulmin, The philosophy of science. An introduction, Hutchinson University Library, London, 1953) and An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics (Toulmin, An examination of the place of reason in ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1950). The technique of pinpointing the constituents of that model in the books preceding The Uses of Argument is superposing the layout of Toulmin’s model on the crucial arguments concerning the earlier books: the scientific one based on Newtonian optics and the moral one concerning keeping promises. Such a procedure allows identifying backing for warrants and argument fields with the methods of representation in The Philosophy of Science and with modes of reasoning in An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics. The former is traced to passages 6.3 ff of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, while the latter—to the concept of word-games (the later Wittgenstein’s language games). The claim regarding Wittgenstein’s background is that in Toulmin’s view of Wittgenstein, some parts of Tractatus concerning representing are in line with Wittgenstein’s later reflections on language games; as well as that the overall method of The Uses of Argument goes along with Wittgenstein’s therapeutic approach to philosophical problems that have to be placed in the context of their ordinary use.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
维特根斯坦和图尔敏的论证模型:谜题的解释
本文探讨了图尔敏论证模式的维特根斯坦背景问题。在欣赏图尔敏在《论证的用途》中所提出的研究的原始特征的同时,维特根斯坦的思想被认为是图尔敏哲学方法和实体论证模式的特定元素的先驱,可以追溯到图尔敏早期的著作:《科学哲学》(图尔敏,科学哲学)。《导言》,哈钦森大学图书馆,伦敦,1953年)和《理性在伦理学中的地位的检验》(图尔敏,《理性在伦理学中的地位的检验》,剑桥大学出版社,剑桥,1950年)。在《论证的用途》之前的书中,精确指出该模型的组成部分的技术是将图尔敏模型的布局叠加在与早期书籍有关的关键论点上:基于牛顿光学的科学论点和关于信守承诺的道德论点。这样的程序允许通过《科学哲学》中的表现方法和《伦理学中理性地位的考察》中的推理模式来确定权证和论证领域的支持。前者可以追溯到维特根斯坦的《哲学论》的第6.3段,而后者则可以追溯到文字游戏的概念(后来的维特根斯坦的语言游戏)。关于维特根斯坦背景的主张是,在Toulmin看来,《Tractatus》中关于表征的部分与维特根斯坦后来对语言游戏的思考是一致的;以及《论证的用途》的整体方法与维特根斯坦对哲学问题的治疗方法是一致的,这些哲学问题必须放在它们的日常使用的背景下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Argumentation
Argumentation Multiple-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal. Its aim is to gather academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference and persuasion: communication, rhetoric (classical and modern), linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, psychology, philosophy, logic (formal and informal), critical thinking, history and law. Its scope includes a diversity of interests, varying from philosophical, theoretical and analytical to empirical and practical topics. Argumentation publishes papers, book reviews, a yearly bibliography, and announcements of conferences and seminars.To be considered for publication in the journal, a paper must satisfy all of these criteria:1.     Report research that is within the journals’ scope: concentrating on argumentation 2.     Pose a clear and relevant research question 3.     Make a contribution to the literature that connects with the state of the art in the field of argumentation theory 4.     Be sound in methodology and analysis 5.     Provide appropriate evidence and argumentation for the conclusions 6.     Be presented in a clear and intelligible fashion in standard English
期刊最新文献
Going Around in Circles Multimodal Argument as Dialogue Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Sara Greco, Ton Van Haaften, Nanon Labrie, Fernando Leal, and Peng Wu. Argumentative Style. A pragma-Dialectical Study of Functional Variety in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2022. 9789027211354 ‘Argumentative Disobedience’ as a Strategy to Confront Hate Speech Wittgenstein and Toulmin’s Model of Argument: The Riddle Explained Away
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1