Argumentation in philosophy: A modest typological proposal
Abstract
Reception: December 12, 2016 Accepted: December 24, 2016 The immediate goal of this essay is to distinguish and describe the types of argumentation we meet in philosophical texts. Such a typology can only be provisional and controversial; but, in order to allow for discussion and revision, it should be simple and clear. After locating argumentation as part of theoretical philosophy (as different from practical philosophy), we therefore start by distinguishing between direct and indirect philosophical arguments; then we divide indirect arguments into historical and methodological (or metaphilosophical), and direct arguments into pure and impure (or perhaps: transphilosophical). The emerging four types (neither classes nor genera or species) are briefly illustrated. The proposed typology could have both metaphilosophical and pedagogical uses. The main metaphilosophical use would be to demonstrate that all philosophers—no matter how many attempts at discrimination and anathema are made against each other, and in spite of contrary appearances produced by stylistic mannerisms—share one common, pervasive and persistent feature: many-splendored argumentation. The main pedagogical use is better to teach students of philosophy how to argue in different modalities.References
BOOLE, G. (1847). A mathematical analysis of logic: Being an essay towards a calculus of deductive reasoning. Cambridge: Macmillan, Barcley & Macmillan.
BOSANQUET, B. (1920). Implication and linear inference. Londres: Macmillan.
CHASE, M., S. R. L. Clark y M. McGhee (coords.) (2013). Philosophy as a way of life—Ancients and moderns:Essays in honor of Pierre Hadot. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
COLLINGWOOD, R. G. (1938). The principles of art. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
DARWIN, Ch. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Londres: John Murray.
DAVIDSON, D. (1985). Plato’s philosopher. The London Review of Books, 7(14), 15-17.
EVANS, G. E. (1982). Varieties of reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
GAOS, J. (1962). De la filosofía: Curso de 1960. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
GAOS, J. (1973). Historia de nuestra idea del mundo. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
GUTTING, G. (2009). What philosophers know: Case studies in recent analytic philosophy. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
HADOT, P. (2002). Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique. Nueva edición revisada y aumentada. París: Albin Michel.
HUEMER, M. (2015). The failure of analysis and the nature of concepts. En C. Daly (coord.) The Palgrave handbook of philosophical methods (pp. 51-76). Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
KRIPKE, S. A. (1982). Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
MENARY, R., (2010). Introduction. En R. Menary (coord.) The extended mind (pp.1-25). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
NELSON, L. (1918). Von der Kunst, zu philosophieren. En Die neue Reformation, vol. 2. Gotinga: Vandenhoeck y Ruprecht.
Peirce Edition Project (1998). The essential Peirce, vol. 2. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
QUINE, W. O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60(1), 20-43.
RESCHER, N. (2006). Philosophical dialectics: An essay on metaphilosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
ROSENBERG, J. (1996). The practice of philosophy. 3a edición. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
RUSSELL, B. (1920). Introduction to mathematical philosophy. Londres: Allen & Unwin.
SANTINELLO, G. (coord.) (1981-2004). Storia delle storie generali della filosofia. 5 vols. Roma: Editrice Antenore. [Hay traducción al inglés en curso bajo el título Models of the history of philosophy, Dordrecht, Springer.]
SAUSSURE, F. (1879). Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: Teubner.
SINGER, P. (2009). The life you can save: Acting now to end world poverty. Nueva York: Random House.
SINGER, P. (2015). The most good you can do: How effective altruism is changing ideas about living ethically. New Haven: Yale University Press.
SOKOLOWSKI, R. (1998). The method of philosophy: making distinctions. The Review of Metaphysics, 51(3), 515-532.
TAYLOR, A. E. (1912). The analysis of epistéme in Plato’s Seventh Epistle. Mind, 21(83), 347-370.
Once the text is accepted for publication in Quadripartita Ratio, the authors must sign two legal documents: the License of Use and the Declaration of Authorship.
With the License of Use, the authors agree to the publication and diffusion of their work (integration in databases, diffusion in our social media, possible reeditions, etc.). However, it authorizes the download, reproduction and distribution of all published content, as long as the content is not modified and the source is indicated (name of the journal, volume, number, pages and electronic address of the document).
With the Declaration of Authorship, the authors manifest that the work is theirs, original and unpublished.
