The individual’s will, intentions, desires, motives, reasons… may be interpreted as causes for action, considered to be effects or consequences of such an “inner” causation. Conversely, actions are evaluated and interpreted according to their motives and reasons are seen as their causes. The consistency requirement imposes this causal structure on human motivation, S. Consistency.

1. Argumentation from the existence of reasons for action

Two basic Aristotelian topics transpose the law of causality in human conduct, with reasons and motives substituted for causes. When the cause exists, then the effect follows. That is to say that when one party has a motive or a reason to do something, as soon as he or she has the opportunity, he or she will do it. In the wording of the topic n° 20 of the Rhetoric:

To consider inducements and deterrents, and the motives people have for doing or avoiding the action in question. (Rhet., II, 23, 20; RR, p. 373)

The basic topos is:

You wished it, so you strived for it!
Who wants the end wants the means.

This topos is also implemented by the pathetic argument. Here, it supports a charge:

You had a motive, you talked about it, the opportunity came up, and you did it!

Or a defense:

L1:     — You did it!
L2:      — I had no reason to do it, I even had reasons not to do it.

Likewise, in topic n°24, cause means “reason to do”:

Another topic is derived from the cause. If the cause exists, the effect exists; if the cause does not exist, the effect does not exist. […] For example, Leodamas […] (id., II, 23, 24; F. p. 319).

2. Arguments on the “real reasons”

The following argument schemes substitute a covert motivation for a public good reason, as a true cause can be substituted for a false one, S. Interpretation:

— Topic n° 15 substitutes a covert, underhanded, interested motive for a noble, publicly claimed reason. It is used to charge or to refute the opponent.

— Topic n° 23 rejects the malevolent interpretation given for an act by giving an acceptable, respectable reason for the alleged guilty motive. It is used to clear somebody from a charge.

— Topic n° 19 changes the benevolent interpretation given to an act for a malevolent one.

2.1 Publicly displayed good reasons and real private ugly intentions

According to topic n° 15 of Aristotle’s Rhetoric:

The things people approve of openly are not those which they approve of secretly: openly, their chief praise is given to justice and nobleness, but in their heart they prefer their own advantage. {…] This is the most effective of the forms of argument that contradict common opinion. (Rhet. II, 23, 15; RR, p. 369)

The argument highlights a (possible) private, hidden, poor motive for refuting the public, honorable, good reason given as justification for an action:

S1:   — Supporting this Charity, I fight for a noble cause!
S2:    — You fight especially for your own advertising.

S1:    — We wage war to restore democracy and human rights in Syldavia
S2:    — You wage war to seize their oil.

In the second dialogue, S1 justifies war, S2 does not oppose war, he or she can simply introduce a realpolitik argument, which could be openly put forward in another situation.

2.2 A commendable motive substituted for a guilty one

This argument corresponds to topic n° 23, “useful for men who have been really or seemingly slandered”:

To show why the facts are not as supposed; pointing out that there is a reason for the false impression given. (Rhet., II, 23, 23; RR p. 375)

embodied in the enthymeme:

She hugs him because he’s her son, not because he is her lover.

Topic n° 23 is quite the reverse of topic n° 19; it helps to exculpate by substituting an honorable motive for the offending one:

I struck him to save him from drowning, not to hurt him.

The action is reinterpreted according to a re-evaluating strategy: “you must congratulate me and not blame me.” S. sStasis (e); Interpretation; Orientation.

2.3 The poisoned chalice

The wording of topic n° 19, is rather puzzling, “some possible motive for an event or state of things is the real one”; it matches the enthymemes:

A gift was given in order to cause pain by its withdrawal.

Gods give to many great prosperity, / Not out of good will towards them, but to make / Their ruin more conspicuous. (Rhet., II, 23, 19; XX p. 371)

The topic operates a dramatic negative reinterpretation of an act which was assessed positively.

She seduced not by love but by hatred / greed / to make him suffer by leaving him later

This is the principle of the “Dinner Game”, “they invited me not as a friend, but to make fun of me”. This technique for narrowing the cognitive and affective discrepancy, particularly effective for destroying a sense of gratitude, S. Emotion.

Latin “argumentum ad verecundiam” lat. verecundia “modesty, humility”

1. The ad verecundiam argument

The argument of modesty is invoked by someone who bows before the speech and the good reasons offered by a person he considers to be superior to him- or herself. It typically refers to an act of submission to ethos. The ad verecundiam argument is the interactional correlative of an appeal to authority, not an appeal to authority. Note that, in the following key passage, Locke refers to ad verecundiam as coming from a fear of breaching “modesty”.

The first [fallacious argument] is to allege the opinion of men, whose parts, learning, eminency, power, or some other cause has gained a name, and settled their reputation in the common esteem with some kind of authority. When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it, and question the authority of men who are in possession of it. This is apt to be censured as carrying with it too much pride, when a man does not readily yield to the determination of approved authors, which is wont to be received with respect and submission by others: and it is looked upon as insolence for a man to set up and adhere to his own opinion against the current stream of antiquity; or to put it in the balance against that of some learned doctor, or otherwise approved writer. Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them. This I think may be called argumentum ad verecundiam. (Locke [1690], p. 410).

This argument is deemed fallacious:

It argues not another man’s opinion to be right because I, out of respect, or any other consideration but that of conviction, will not contradict him. [1690], p. 411).

In a similar way, topic n°11 of the Rhetoric argues “from a previous judgment in regard to the same or a similar or contrary matter”. Such a precedent-setting judgment must have been produced by an authority, one of “those whose judgment it is not possible to contradict” (Aristotle, Rhet., II, 23, 12; F. 309), that is to say, “it would be disgraceful to contradict him” (ibid.; my italics), be he a father, a god, an instructor or a wise man. Politeness is argumentatively oriented in favor of the submission to the status quo.

2. Authority or pusillanimity?
Ad verecundiam, or misplaced modesty

Locke stages an interaction, where one partner “allege[s]” an authoritative opinion. It appears from the description that the characteristics conferring authority to an opinion have either a social (“parts, learning, eminency, power … dignity”) or an intellectual source (“learning, … approved author… learned doctor… approved writer”), S. Ethos. Such sources do indeed have a legitimizing power, S. Dialectic. Note that religious authorities are not mentioned.

It must be emphasized that Locke does not censor the expression of or the reference to authoritative opinions in a first round of speech, but blames the acritical acceptation of such an authority, that is the lack of a second round of speech in which what has previously been said is criticized and alternative views are expressed. The condemnation ad verecundiam is a protest against the censure of this second round by an internal impulse of modesty, the feeling of one’s own insufficiency (however legitimate it can be). This censorship is a preventive reaction to a threat that could come from a third round claiming to silence the objection addressed to the authority. This third turn itself does not deal with the substance of the objection made to the second (by an argument ad judicium, S. Matter. It merely substitutes in the discussion of the critical opinion, a negative evaluation of the person who supports it, an ad personam attack invoking “a breach of modesty, too much pride, insolence, impudence”, that is, an intimidation maneuver, S. Personal Attack; Respect. The problem is therefore not located in the authoritative first round, but in the inhibitive foreboding of an aggressive third round. As expressed by the label “argument ad verecundiam”, the fallacy is committed by the interlocutor, the overly humble individual who expresses no objection for fear of creating a scene. This is not primarily a fallacy of authority but of cowardice or spinelessness. The verecundia is the (false sense of) shame that prevents one saying what one thinks out loud.

4. Justified modesty

When it comes to authority itself, the problem is twofold. In the first turn, participant S1_1 has “alleged” an authoritative opinion, which may be a fairly sensible move. Suppose that S2 can overcome his or her ad verecundiam inhibition, and quite freely voices his or her opinion, in a second turn. Then, if in a third turn S1_2 bars S2_1’s remarks in the name of authority, whilst also criticizing his opponent for his or her boldness and pride then S1 argues from authority, which certainly is a fallacious move. Some situations are nonetheless embarrassing. If S1 quotes Einstein in his (Einstein) field of competence, S1 having a good background in physics and S2 none, then a humble lay speaker S2 would be wise to ask for more explanation before voicing his or her doubts. If not, S1_2 would legitimately give in to an authoritative exasperation.

3. A fallacy in dialogue

The problem of authority is thus reframed as that of authoritarian interaction, that is to say a dialogue where an authority is quoted in the first speech turn, and alleged in the third turn to silence the objections, considering that the quoted authority gives the quoter the power to close the discussion. This use of authority is a direct contrast to the use made of it in a dialectical game. The problem does not lie so much in the quoting of authority as in the possibility of contradicting authority. Modesty, respect, concern not to cause the other to lose face, rules of politeness, preference for agreement are all intellectual inhibitors. All these constraints define a typically anti-dialectical situation, S. Dialectic.

Authority is accepted as fact, the problem lies in the possibility of calling this authority into question. Authority is deceptive only if it claims to escape from dialogue, to silence and not to answer its counter-discourse. The conclusion is that what is fallacious or not fallacious is the dialogue itself. It is impossible to say whether a statement such as “The Master said it!” is misleading or not; it all depends on the statement’s position in the dialogue. If it is an opening statement, it is not fallacious. If it is a closing statement, intending to silence the critic, it is.

Lat. argument ad temperentiam, Lat. temperentia, “moderation, measure, restraint”

1. Argument to moderation and radicalism

In politics, moderation is opposed to radicalism or extremism, as reformism is to revolution. The argument from moderation is developed in discourses which prioritize the necessity of sticking to practicality, to compromise, of holding inclusive positions, changing things little by little, etc. The appeal to radicalism is developed in discourses which foreground the urgency of the decision, the necessity of a new start, of avoiding deadlocks in discussions, the will to be true to one’s principles framed as antinomies, “freedom or death”.

Two contrasted ethos and emotional states are associated respectively with moderation and radicalism: conservative vs. progressive; open to dialogue and compromising vs. uncompromising; realist vs. idealist; calm / exaltation; etc.

2. Middle ground argument

The middle ground argument justifies a measure by showing that it does not satisfy any of the opposing parties. The speaker takes the position of the responsible third party, S. Roles.

Both the far right and the far left attack my policy; it clearly shows that it is a good policy.
Keep away from extremes.

Christianity has reestablished in architecture, as in other arts, true proportions. Our temples, bigger than those of Athens, and smaller than those of Memphis, have that proper balance, in which beauty and taste par excellence prevail.
Chateaubriand, [The Genius of Christianity], 1802[1]

The intermediate position is valued: reason and virtue “stand in the middle” (Lat. in medio stat virtus):

Neither rash nor coward, just courageous.

The arguer who opts to take the middle-ground will be stigmatized as a person who is indecisive, or who does not want to examine the arguments of the parties in detail, “let’s stop the discussion, meet in the middle; split the difference”. The case of Solomon’s judgment shows that there are stakes that cannot be so easily split up.

[1] Quoted after François René de Châteaubriand, Le Génie du christianisme. Part 3, Book 1, Chap. 6. Tours: Mame, 1877, p. 194-195.

Traditionally, two main domains are distinguished within the field of rhetoric, one deals with tropes and figures, and the other deals with argument schemes. A semantic and ornamental rhetoric is opposed to a cognitive and functional rhetoric. This approximate opposition can be misleading.

1. Tropes

A trope is defined as an operation “through which a word is given a meaning which is not precisely the proper meaning of that word” (Dumarsais [1730], p. 69). This definition may be paralleled by that of an argument as an operation “through which a statement (the conclusion) is given a belief value which is not precisely the proper belief value of that statement”.

The linguistic mechanisms involved in the tropic referential shift bear a significant resemblance to those involved in argument. In both cases, this is a transfer problem. In the case of a trope, the meaning of a word is transferred to another. In the case of an argument, the belief value of a statement is transferred to another, and the rules of transfer are similar.

Metaphor^@, irony^@, metonymy and synecdoche considered to be the four “master tropes” (Burke, 1945), are all relevant to the study of argumentation, although in fairly different ways.

2. Metonymy

2.1 Metonymy as a trope

Consider the classical example of metonymy, “the pen is mightier than the sword”. A pen is “an instrument for writing or drawing with ink…” (MW, Sword), and a sword is “a weapon with a long metal blade and a hilt with a hand guard…” (OD, Sword.). In the quoted proverb, pen and sword are used metonymically to mean respectively “word, thought and discourse, verbal communication…” and “physical violence, military force…”. The global meaning being that “strength will not prevail over reasoned discourse”.

Generally speaking, the metonymy semantic scheme can be described as follows.

— There is a word {S / C1}, its signifier is S and its content C1: pen/“instrument for writing”.
— The signifier S is used metonymically to designate content C0: pen/“discourse”.
— This transfer of meaning operates under a condition: it needs a backing, expressed in a transition law such as “C0 is in some relation of contiguity with C1”. Here, “the pen is the instrument used to produce discourse”

The subtypes of metonymy schemes are classified according to the kind of contiguity connection between the contents of C0 and C1, for example:

— Effect for cause, “Death is in the Meadow”.
— Instrument for agent, “She is the pen of the President”.
— Agent (or “cause”) for the work produced: “A new Shakespeare just came out”.
— Instrument for object produced, “The pen is mightier…”.
— Name of the place where the object is made for the object itself, etc. “I feel like having a Cognac”.
— Relevant ongoing planned action for a participant: “Sir, your rendezvous just left”.

2.2 Metonymic transfer and argumentative transfer

Figures and arguments require the same kind of backing. This can be suggested by the following examples.

The effect for cause metonymy: “Death is in the Meadow”[1] meaning that phytosanitary products (also called crop protection products) (Ph) used in agriculture can cause death (D). The word (signifier) designating the effect (D) now designates (refers to) the cause (Ph).

— In the effect-to-cause argument, the (truth-)value predicated upon the effect is transferred back to the cause, or to a series of causes:

Metals expand when heated

This metal expanded (is an established fact) SO it has been heated (is an established fact)

The tire exploded, so [either C1, or C2, or…] (id.); S. Case-by-Case

Effect-to-cause argument transfers the predicate “— is an established fact” from the effect to the cause.

The word death refers to death; in the case of metonymy, its referential domain is extended so as to include the cause of death, “death refers to phytosanitary products”. In our standard vision of reference, a word refers to an object; actually it refers centrally to an object, and to the objects contextually connected to it; that is, the word (signifier) actually refers to any element belonging to the cluster of that objects, S. Object of discourse. Ordinary language clearly expresses this fact:

(1) He has a temperature so he has an infection.
(2) Give him antibiotics, it will reduce the fever.

The antibiotic in fact acts upon the infection, and fever in (2) should thus be considered to be an effect-for-cause metonymic designation of the infection. On the other hand, fever is a natural sign of an infection: “he has a fever that means he has an infection”: this is precisely what the metonymic analysis says.

A metonymy designating a work by the name of its author corresponds to an argumentation transferring to a work a judgment about its author: “The author of this book supported the former dictator”. The mechanisms of this metonymic transfer from the person to his or her acts and products have been studied from the argumentative point of view in Perelman (1952), S. Person.

3. Synecdoche

As shown by example of the rendezvous above (§1), metonymic naming can operate upon any pair of strongly connected objects, this connection being accidental (local), or essential. Synecdoche operates upon constituents of a whole. The word “metonymy” is sometimes used to refer to both metonymy and synecdoche.

3.1 “Part – whole” and “whole – part” relations

A roof is a component of a house; in “looking for a roof”, roof means “house”, houses being considered prototypical lodgings.

Part – whole arguments transfer to a whole the predicate attached to the part. These are backed by the same kind of connection, S. Composition and division.

The roof is in poor condition, so the house must not be well maintained.

3.2 Genus for species and species for genus

A synecdoche of a genus for a species uses the name of the genus to refer to one of its species; the name of the genus replaces that of the species: “the animal” for “the lion”. This use is most common in textual co-referring:

We saw a lion. The poor animal was gaunt and sick.

Backed by the same relation, the argumentation by the genus attaches to the species the predicates of the genus, S. Taxonomy and category; Categorization:

This is a lion, therefore it is an animal, and therefore, it is mortal.

4. The tree and its fruits

The following argument was advanced in defense of Paul Touvier, leader of the pro-Nazi Militia in Lyon, France, during the German Nazi Occupation. Sentenced to death after the war, he escaped and remained in hiding for 25 years. The following excerpt is taken from a letter to the then President of the French Republic by the Rev. Blaise Arminjon, S. J., on December 5, 1970, in support of Paul Touvier’s petition for clemency:

How are we to believe that he [Touvier] is a “criminal”, or a “bad Frenchman”, when his conduct for twenty-five years, and the education he has given his children, has been so admirable? A tree is known by its fruits.[2]

A Toulmin style analysis can be applied to this passage, the warrant being provided by the biblical topos, “a tree is known by its fruits”:

For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
Luke 6:43-45, New King James Version.

But this transition law also authorizes a metonymy-based interpretation. To speak of “the [admirable] conduct of Touvier for twenty-five years” is a way of referring to Touvier metonymically. To say that this conduct is “admirable” is to say metonymically that Touvier is admirable. Similarly, a positive evaluation of the act, “the education that Touvier gave his children is admirable” also spreads metonymically to the agent, Touvier, who is necessarily equally admirable. The same phenomenon can be equally expressed in the language of tropes or in the language of argument, both of which implement the same kind of rationality.

[1] La Mort est dans le pré, youtube.com/watch?v=nAMARhJoFaQ
[2] Quoted in René Rémond & al., Paul Touvier and the Church, Paris, Fayard, 1992, p. 164.

From a rhetorical point of view, metaphor is valued as a cryptic analogy, the clarification of which is entrusted to the audience. The key difference between metaphor and analogy is that, while analogy keeps the two domains it relates separate and distinct, metaphor tends to conflate them.

According to Aristotle, metaphor is the most efficient persuasive instrument of ordinary discourse. From the perspective of an anti-rhetorical theory of argumentation, metaphor is abundantly misleading. But metaphor is also a powerful cognitive tool for building representations, and better understanding complex situations. Metaphor applies the language of a model, i.e. the Resource domain (the metaphorical term) to an actual situation, the Problematic domain to which belongs the (sometimes missing) metaphorized term, S. Structural Analogy.

1. Metaphor put on trial

If metaphor is defined as a figure, and figures are defined as ornaments, then metaphor is misleading in all its dimensions, S. Fallacy; Ornamental fallacy. The metaphorical statement is false: “The voter is a calf” said Charles de Gaulle; but the voter (proper term) is not a calf (metaphorical term) the voter is a human being. Metaphor systematically commits a category mistake. One can also accuse metaphor of creating ambiguity, because it introduces a parasitic level of signification, the figurative meaning, running parallel to the proper, standard meaning.

Metaphor pops up, creating a surprise and introducing an emotion (ad passiones fallacy); it entertains the audience (ad populum fallacy), thus sacrificing docere to placere. It turns the reasonable arguer into an actor (ad ludicrum fallacy). Metaphor is therefore the discursive distractor par excellence, putting the audience on a false trail, and confusing the honest literal individual in his or her pursuit for truth. S. Relevance; Red Herring; Resumption of discourse.

Therefore, metaphor is, and should be, banished from serious argumentative discourse, as it is from scientific language; it can be helpful only when re-formulated as a comparison (Ortony 1979, p. 191). Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that metaphor is active and welcome to stimulate creativity and facilitate science transmission and popularization.

2. Metaphor, the ultimate weapon of persuasion?

Persuasion, pistis, is produced in three ways “(1) by working on the emotions of the judges themselves, (2) by giving them the right impression of the speaker’s character, or (3) by proving the truth of the statements made” (Aristotle, Rhet., 1403b10; RR p. 397), in the latter case, persuasion emerging “from the facts themselves” (ibid).

Ideally, the issue should be discussed on the basis of facts and proofs: “we ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore should matter except the proof of those facts” (ibid 1404a1; RR p. 399). But normal people are not perfect, and “owing to the defects of our hearers”, and of our “political institutions”, “the arts of language cannot help having a small but real importance” in public discourse and education — but not in geometry: “nobody uses fine language when teaching geometry” (1404a1-10, RR. p. 399).

So, refined language is the most effective tool of persuasion. Persuasion by emotion (pathos) and image (ethos) is produced, orally, by the “oratorical action”; in writing, by the stylistic arrangement of facts, “because speeches of the written or literary kind owe more to their diction than to their thought” (1404a15; p. 401). Metaphor is the supreme tool of written discourse “both in poetry and in prose”; it “gives style clearness, charm and distinction as nothing else can” (1405a1-10; RR, p. 405). The conclusion is clear: metaphor is the ultimate weapon of persuasion, defined as the art of “[hiding one’s] purpose successfully” (1404b20; RR, p. 403), and charming the audience, S. Logos, Ethos, Pathos.

Contemporary approaches to metaphor unanimously consider that metaphor derives this power from the intrinsic element of surprise, resulting from the perception of an anomaly in the discourse, a rupture, an inconsistency, an incongruity, a contradiction of logic, in short, a discursive coup, to the audience’s delight. Pleasure cannot be rebutted, and metaphor is thus considered to be quasi inaccessible to refutation — in reality, it is: cf. infra, §4

3. Metaphor and interpretative cooperation

Using a metaphor, the speaker openly seeks the interpretative cooperation of the audience; creating cooperation, metaphor strengthens the importance of prior agreements. Note that the same functional explanation is given for the derivation of enthymemes from underlying syllogisms. In both cases, the argumentative (i.e. effective, persuasive) function of the enthymematic or metaphoric condensation is the activation of the partner, S. Enthymeme §5.

This analysis assumes that the non-argumentative metaphorical language, or the non-elliptic syllogism would be transparent, or less complex than the metaphorical language, and that their direct interpretation would not require the same degree of cooperation from the audience, which is not self-evident.

4. Metaphor as analogy

Metaphor finds smart solutions to the riddle of metaphor:

Metaphor is the dreamwork of language and, like all dreamwork, its interpretation reflects as much on the interpreter as on the originator. The interpretation of dreams requires collaboration between a dreamer and a waker, even if they be the same person; and the act of interpretation is itself a work of the imagination. So too, understanding a metaphor is as much a creative endeavor as making a metaphor, and as little guided by rules.
(Davidson 1978, p. 29)

In The Interpretation of Dreams (1900) Freud defines dream-work as the process by which the latent content of a dream is covered by its manifest content, by displacement, distortion, condensation and symbolism. The metaphor “metaphor / dream work” is difficult to reject, even if it commits the fallacy of trying to go ad obscurum per obscurius, that is, it attempts to illuminate the dark (metaphor) by the darker (the dream work).

The metaphor is a model, (Black 1962), and an imperialist model, urging one to identify the metaphorized reality within the metaphorical world:

L1 — we should do something with the economy…
L2 — with the “economy-casino” you mean\
L1 — oh yes, all these addicted traders should be banned from the market!

Reconstructed analogy “as addicted players are banned from casinos”

Saying that “the voter is a calf” is to mean that “the voter is hesitant, weak and can be manipulated like a calf”, calves being here the stereotypical animal combining these characteristics. The metaphor opens new perspectives, and legitimates a new set of inferences about voters: if they are categorized as calves, one can make them adopt behaviors directly contrary to their interests, e.g. to lead them to a more or less metaphorical slaughterhouse.

Metaphor draws its argumentative strength from an analogy pushed to identification. Structural analogy explicitly brings together two domains, respecting their specificities; the domains are confronted, not assimilated. Metaphor renders the comparison implicit, negates the metaphorized domain, assimilated to the metaphorical one. This is why the reconstruction of the analogy underlying the metaphorical expression betrays metaphor: it splits apart what metaphor has joined together. Peter is a lion: the language referring to lions is substituted for the language referring to humans; we are not far from the hyper-unitary coherent Renaissance world where everything is mirrored in everything,, S. Analogical thinking.

5. Jumping from analogy to identity?

Analogy can be defined as a partial identity. The question of possible profound identity, underlying immediately discernible differences plays an essential role here:

Snowdrifts are like corrugated iron.
Snowdrifts are like dunes.

The syntactic structures of these two statements are identical, both propose the image of “waves” to the interlocutor, and a key common semantic feature, /waving/. But the second comparison is deeper; it opens the way to a theory. It introduces an analogy of proportion:

snow : snowdrift :: sand : dune

It suggests that the analogy can be explained by the action of wind on, respectively, the snow particles and sand grains. It puts the hearer on the way to the construction of a physical-mathematical model covering the two phenomena (with due respect paid to the differences between the two kinds of particles, grains of sand and snowflakes, and their respective laws of agglomeration). From two apparently distinct phenomena (one can know what a dune is without knowing what a snowdrift is, and vice-versa), we end up with the problem of a unifying abstract representation: can the same physical model account for the two phenomena?

Establishing an analogy may be considered to be the first step toward the affirmation of an in-depth identity. Such a shift, from explanatory analogy to identity is at the center of a class of arguments about analogy, which fit perfectly into the framework of a vision of metaphor, not only as a model but also as the genuine essence of the metaphorized phenomenon.

6. Mole rats “societies”, human society: metaphor or identity?

The following texts and information are taken from S. Braude & E. Lacey, “A revolutionary monarchy: the society of mole rats”[1]. Mole rats are mammals, precisely hairless rats, living in “groups” or “communities” (the difference is relevant); they exhibit behaviors evoking those observed among social insects, like ants or bees. But this behavior has never been observed in mammals. Hairless mole rats are thus the first mammals with this kind of “social behavior”.

But, when speaking of “social behavior” or “community”, do we use a simple analogical-metaphorical lexicon, a pedagogical or explanatory metaphor? Or are we engaged in a process of describing these newly identified animal behaviors in terms of the existing structures of human societies? Do we suggests, as in the case of the dunes and snowdrifts, that both phenomena may well have the same foundations, biological in this case? Does the organization of human societies obey the same biological laws as apply to mole rat “societies”? Are we on the way towards a socio-biological theory of human societies? Have we moved surreptitiously from metaphorical language to identification?

This is a strategy of “slippery metaphor”. This strategy is so successful, that it reverses the relationship Target / Resource. Being closer to nature, mole rats, formerly the Target, now become a model for the study of human society, formerly the Resource.

In order to reject this assimilation, the opponent lists the terms coming from the field Resource, the human social lexicon:

The phrase “division of labor” is used four times; the word “task” also appears four times; the term “responsible” also appears four times, and “they take care of” once; the terms “cooperation” and “subordinate” are used once each. The expression “sexual status” is used three times to refer to the reproductive state of the animals. (G. Lepape, [Investigation], 1992)

In their reply to this criticism, the authors of the article set limits to the identification of the two areas:

G. Lepape also contends that our language introduces unfair comparisons which attribute common behavioral traits to mole rats and social insects. This assertion surprises us, especially when he writes, “the similarities [between hairless mole rats and social insects] are treated as true homologies”. Our article is clear on that point: we believe that the behavior of hairless mole rats and eusocial[2] insects have striking similarities. However, we do not see how the language used to describe these similarities can suggest that a common origin of these animals would constitute the evolutionary basis of these similarities.
Braude & Lacey, id..

The danger here is that we might be tempted to forget that we are dealing with analogy, which is “never more compelling than when it is abolished and ceases to be perceived as an analogy. Becoming invisible, it merges with the order of things.” (Gadoffre 1980, p. 6)

7. Against metaphors

Politicians [are] catering to a public that doesn’t understand the rationale for deficit spending, that tends to think of the government budget via analogies with family finances.
When John Boehner, the Republican leader, opposed US stimulus plans on the grounds that “American families are tightening their belt, but they don’t see the government tightening its belt”, economists cringed at the stupidity. But within a few months the very same line was showing up in Barack Obama’s speeches […]. Similarly, the Labour party […]
(The Guardian 04-29-2015)[3]

The “stupidity” is that of inference “families are tightening their belts, SO the state must tighten its belt”. We can reconstruct the warranting principle of this argument as a metaphor:

A state, a nation, a country is a family.

One could also think of a kind of composition:

The state is made up of families, families are tightening their belts, the state must tighten its belt.

However, the metaphor “state, family” has deep roots; it is based on the etymology of the word economy, from the Greek oikonomia, “home management”; it is found in the praise of the leader as “father of the nation”, “founding father”, etc.

Krugman considers that politicians are “catering” (“providing what the public wants, desires or what amuses them”; after d.c, cater) to a public “that doesn’t understand”; so politicians must use metaphors, and metaphors, at least this metaphor – is stupid — this is indeed exactly what Aristotle said, cf. supra.

Happy metaphors do serve to charm the audience, but the fact that there are also unhappy metaphors must be fully acknowledged. Where they are used, the interlocutors are not only not “charmed”, showing no pleasure, but they also “cringe at the stupidity”, that is, “show on their face and bodies their feeling of disgust and embarrassment” (after MW, Cringe). This is exactly how metaphor can be rebutted as metaphors.

Then, in a second step, the accounts can be settled with the substantial contents, that is the de-metaphorized claim “in times of economic crisis, the state must turn to austerity”. Krugman conducts this substantive rebuttal in the semi-technical language of economics, combining a priori refutation (theoretically ill-grounded), falsification (forecasts contradicted by facts) and pragmatic refutation (policies inspired by this theory have failed). But a second metaphor remains; if words such as restriction and austerity, have a clearly negative orientation, the expression “to tighten one’s belt”, associated with successful diet, weight loss, slimness, has strong visual, irrefutable positive connotations, inaccessible to refutation.

[1] Braude, S. & Lacey E. (1989). Une monarchie révolutionnaire: la société des rats-taupes. La Recherche [Investigation], a journal of general scientific information] July-August 1989. Comments from G. Le Pape, and reply of the authors in the same journal, Oct. 1992.

[2] “Living in a cooperative group in which usually one female and several males are reproductively active and the nonbreeding individuals care for the young or protect and provide for the group eusocial termites, ants, and naked mole rats” (MW, Eusocial)

[3] www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion (15-08-16)

The argument to the matter address the relevant facts and the central issue under discussion, that is the substance of the controversy, the merits of the case, the heart of the matter under discussion.

Discussion of the matter is avoided, for example, when somebody accused of corruption and embezzlement of public money answers to the charge by a counter accusation of misogyny, using a classical argument substituting a private and potentially shameful ulterior motive for a public and honorable good reason.
In that sense, an argument to the matter is a quite different thing from an argument drawn from the subject matter of the law.

Like the ad judicium and ad rem arguments, arguments addressing the matter under discussion are not argument schemes, that is, forms of reasoning leading to a conclusion, such as the argument by analogy or by opposites. Any argument scheme may or may not be used to discuss the substance or form of a debate.

The three labels ad rem, ad judicium and to the matter could be taken absolutely, in the Lockian style, as referring to arguments producing knowledge based on natural objects by scientific method, see ad judicium.
On the global opposition ad judicium – to the matter – ad rem  / to the letter, S. Ad judicium.

1. Argument to the matter and validity

To say that an argument is to the matter means that it is relevant to the debate, and that it constitutes a substantial contribution to the discussion.
From the immanent evaluative perspective of the third parties, such arguments are the only ones whose strength and value are worthy of discussion and should be registered or mentioned in the argument map of the discussion.

This does not mean however that they are automatically validated. A party can invoke a precedent, for example, which is clearly a legitimate and substantial move, when dealing with the matter. The precedent can, however, be criticized and rejected, by an argument showing that the so-called precedent are not similar enough to the actual facts. This argument although on the matter is finally declared irrelevant to the issue under discussion Nonetheless, it can be registered as an interesting objection.

2. Form and substance (matter) of the discussion

Arguments dealing with the substance of the discussion are complementary to arguments about its form of the discussion,  which relate to the conditions in which the discussion is taking place. They have to do with the framework, procedure and rules according to which the issue is dealt with. For example, participants may object that they could not get in time the needed documents; or that the quorum was not reached.

3. Logos-based arguments and arguments to the matter

Misleading associations could lead one to think that the arguments related to the logos are “logical” and therefore objective, dealing with objects, and, as a consequence, with the matter and substance of things. As such, logos-derived arguments would be opposed to ethotic and pathemic arguments, the latter being  subjective and arbitrary.

In everyday argumentation, as well as logo-ic arguments, ethotic and pathemic arguments exploit the logos, understood as language and discourse. In an argumentative situation, however, it is the question which determines what the object, the matter and substance, of the debate is.
Arguments referring to persons, their values and emotions are substantial (ad rem and ad judicium) to the extent that they are relevant to the question. Recalling the previous convictions of a person is not irrelevant in all contexts. The description of the state of emotional shock in which the victim was found, for example, might be relevant in court. The problem is distinguishing between the aspects of a personality which are relevant to the discussion, and those which are not. This process is particularly complicated when the persons involved are parties in the argument process.

4. Indirect arguments, peripheral arguments,
arguments to the matter

Indirect argument such as an argument from the absurd, or from ignorance, and they can be to the matter or not.

The same is true for peripheral arguments, exploiting indices accidentally associated with action. A peripheral argument on the person, for example, is to the matter if relevant to the discussion: a witness saw him near the scene of the crime; or not really so: a witness says the suspect is a good friend of his, S. Circumstances.

[1] http://carm.org/dictionary-argumentum-ad-judicium (20-09-13).

1. Many questions as a dialectical fallacy

Dialectical games use an ortho-language (S. Logics for Dialogue), that is to say a language game derived from ordinary language and interaction supplemented by a system of conventional rules. The problem about the so-called fallacy of “many questions” originates first in two specific rule of the dialectical game, as exposed in Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutation (RS), S. Fallacies . In ordinary language, one single interrogative sentence may contain many questions and many answers, a property derived from the fact that sentences have several layers of meaning. Logical dialectical game prohibits the exploitation of this linguistic resource, and requires the use not of ordinarily phrased sentences, but of propositions, a proposition being defined as “a single statement about a single thing” (Aristotle, RS, 169a6; Tricot, p. 30). Secondly, logical dialectical game authorizes only yes/no answers.

The linguistic phenomenon of loaded questions (also known as many or multiple questions) is examined by Aristotle in the context of a dialectical exchange, where they are considered a fallacious discursive maneuver, S. Fallacies. It consists in “the making of two questions into one” (id. 167b35; p. 22).

Consider a set composed of bad things and good things (id., §5). The misleading question is: “is the set good or bad?”. The answer “good” will be rejected by alleging a bad thing, and the answer “bad” by alleging a good thing. (ibid.). The correct answers are yes for the first component and no for the second one; but the smart sophist will refute the yes by alleging the second component, and vice-versa.
The case of the half white and half black picture might be more convincing. The sophistical dialectical question is: “is it (=the picture) black (resp. white)?”. As there are only two authorized answers “yes” or “no”, they will be refuted respectively by focusing on the white (resp. black) part of the picture (id., §5).

Ordinary speakers would simply give the sensible non-dialectal answer, “this part is white and the other black”.
One can imagine that the question “is anger a good thing?” exhibits that kind of problem. The answer yes is refuted by any negative aspects of anger such as violence or lack of self-control, whilst the no is undermined by any case of “righteous anger”.

The fallacy of many questions is thus a clear example of fallacy defined as a breach of dialectical rules, S. Fallacies (2). The issue of many questions arises as a by-product of the rules of the dialectical game, and there is no need to import it as such in the analysis of ordinary argumentation. Rhetorical argumentation has no problem with confusing questions; they are answered with a conceptual dissociation or a distinguo.

2. Presupposition

Natural language questions might concern statements containing presuppositions that are, or are not, considered acceptable by their recipient:

S1: — You should think about the reasons for the failure of your policy.
S2: — But my policy has not failed!

S2 rejects the presupposition of S1 “your policy has failed”.
The imposition of a presupposed judgment is contrary to the logical principle that a statement expresses a single judgment (if it contains several judgments, each must be asserted separately). Consequently it contradicts the dialectical rule requiring that each proposition be explicitly accepted or rejected by the respondent. S1 could therefore ask S2 the question “why P?” only if S1 and S2 previously agree on the existence of P. From a Perelmanian perspective, the question of presuppositions should be settled within the framework of prior agreements, S. Conditions for discussion.

The problem is that, in ordinary language, all statements are more or less “loaded” not only by their orientation, but also by their implicit contents of various kinds, some of them inferred from oriented words. In reality, it is always possible to extract litigious presupposed or infer propositional contents from a statement and to subsequently hold the interlocutor liable for it. Let us consider a discussion between a banker and a recriminating customer trying to get a better interest rate:

S1_1:   — I went to the bank just across the street from my house, and they immediately offered me a loan at a lower rate than the one you proposed to me!
S2:      — It’s because they wanted to have you as a customer.
S1_2:   — Because you do not want to keep me as a customer?

S1_2 extracts from or infers from S2’s intervention an implicit content that S2 certainly rejects, but nevertheless shows the banker that a different explanation is needed. This move can be considered to be a special straw man maneuver (de Saussure 2015).

1. Word and Domains

The transitive verb to manipulate, “No manipulates N1” functions within two structures:

Manipulate₁: N1 refers to an object (non-human, inanimate) (container manipulation) or body parts (spinal manipulation).

Manipulate₂: N1 designates a person as a synthesis of representations and capable of self-determination. Manipulating₂ is exploitative; manipulating people is using them as objects or instruments.

To manipulate is the head of a rich and homogeneous derivational family: manipulation, manipulator, (non-)manipulatory, (non-)manipulative, outmanipulate, “to outdo or surpass in manipulating”, (MW, Outmanipulate).

Manipulation₂ can influence all domains of human activity.

— Political, ideological and religious fields.
— Everyday psychology: a manipulator, manipulative behavior.
— Military domain: White propaganda comes from domestic source and targets domestic public opinion; it may be misleading. Black propaganda has a concealed origin and purpose. It appears to come from a well-meaning and harmless source, although it comes from an evil or enemy source.
— Commercial action and marketing techniques are used to encourage or manipulate people to buy this rather than that or nothing, using different techniques to “bait and hook” the customer, S. Gradualism.

In these different fields, manipulative influence may cross, combine or contradict argumentative persuasion.

2. Doing together: from collaboration to manipulation

Manipulation is a resource that may be activated in any situation where a person M pursues a goal φ. To achieve this goal, M requires a contribution to be made by another person, N.

2.1 Overt purpose negotiation

(i) M considers that φ is in the interest of N, and N agrees

N has a positive representation of φ; φ is considered important, pleasant, in the individual’s interest; N pursues φ spontaneously, for independent reasons. So, M needs N and N needs M; M and N co-operate to achieve φ.

If N’s commitment is less immediate, M will take a more open approach and will seek to persuade N to associate with him or her in order to realize φ. N knows that M intends to make him or her do φ, and they will discuss this with one another.

(ii) Doing φ is not really in the best interest of N

N doesn’t care about φ. He or she will not spontaneously collaborate with M in order to achieve φ. M may then act on the will or on the mental representations of N.

(a) Action on the will to do

In this situation, M may undertake to persuade N to do φ. M threatens N (ad baculum), tries to blackmail or bribe N (ad crumenam), to move N to pity (ad misericordiam), to charm or seduce N (ad amicitiam), S. Threat; Emotion.

N still has a rather negative view of φ. But M’s arguments, if they are arguments at all, have transformed N’s willingness to act, and he or she will ultimately agree to act in favor of φ even if he or she does not like it. N does φ reluctantly, as a favor to M. The question arises as to whether N has been manipulated.

(b) Action on representations of the action to be taken

M may reframe φ so that it seems to be pleasant or favorable, in N‘s in best interests. As in case (i), N agrees to do φ because it seems beneficial.

In case (a), N will do a job that he or she knows to be dangerous, because it is well paid. In case (b), N will do a job, hazardous or not, which he or she does not consider to be dangerous. M can combine the two strategies: “you can do this for me, it’s not so dangerous”. These two situations are not necessarily manipulative. M has openly presented the goalφto N; N was persuaded to do φ for arguably good reasons; the work may not actually be all that dangerous, and it is well paid.

M behaves manipulatively only if he or she knows that the work is dangerous, but knowingly misrepresents it, concealing the danger to N. Lying is the basis of manipulation.

(iii) Doing φ is against the interests and values ​​of N

Now, φ is clearly contrary to the interests of N. In normal circumstances, N would automatically oppose M in his or her attitude toφ. Nevertheless, it is still possible for M:

— To persuade N to willfully do something contrary to his interests or values. In an extreme case, for example, N might be persuaded to commit suicide or sacrifice him or herself, even if he or she does not wish to die, in the name of a higher interest or value, “God, the Party, the Nation, asks you to…”; “You must sacrifice your children to make our cause prevail”.

— To persuade N that the action to which he or she is urged is good, and in his or her best interest. M urges N to sacrifice him or herself for example, even if N is not eager to die, “you will go to le se”. The discourse and arguments through which M persuades N to consent to φ are manipulative because they do not respect a hierarchy of values that is considered natural. On the basis of highly questionable arguments, N was induced to do something to which no person would reasonably commit. This is a case of brainwashing.

2.2 Covert purpose negotiation

In the cases described above, N is more or less aware of what he or she is committing to doing. Deep manipulation, however, is characterized by M’s hiding his or her actual intentions or the true nature of the goal φ, which in reality is unacceptable to N. M will use a secondary goal, as a decoy (φ_d):

(i) φ_d is positive for N: N is led to believe that it is in his or her interests to do φ_d
(ii) φ_d leads fatally to φ
(iii) N ignores (2)
(iv) N achieves the decoy goal; M pockets the bet.

There is not necessarily a verbal exchange, or even contact between M and N during this process. N suffers any damage, and may or may not understand that he or she has been manipulated. N may lose the game without even knowing he or she was playing a game. One example might be that of a salesman. A large encyclopedia, for example, is sold to consumers who, although delighted by its purchase, hardly know how to read, have no use for this type of book, and, in any case, cannot afford to pay the bill. The salesman has achieved the feat of framing the sales interaction,φ, as an ordinary, friendly conversation, φ_decoy.

3. “Pious lies”

Manipulation achieved via a pious lie is what we see in action when, for example, we put sweeteners in cod-liver oil administered to children; or what Calvin attributes to monks who wish to bring people to their salvation by any means, because the end justifies the means. The following excerpt is about the multiplication of the relics of the true cross:

Now, what other conclusion can be drawn from these considerations but that all these were inventions for deceiving silly folks? Some monks and priests, who call them pious frauds, i.e., honest deceits for exciting the devotion of the people, have even confessed this.
John Calvin, A Treatise on Relics, [1543][1]

The concept and practice of “patriotic fraud” in elections might be seen as a modern day version of the practices that Calvin attributes to medieval monks.

4. Manipulation and power practices

The status accorded to manipulation is based on ideas of power and action. Should power be exercised by reason and valid argument, or, in a Machiavellian perspective, does it necessarily require the use of force and lies?

I must confess that what is called the cultured circles of Western Europe and America are incapable of understanding the actual balance of power. These people must be considered deaf-mutes.
To tell the truth is petty bourgeois prejudice, while lying is often justified by the objectives. (Lenin, quoted in V. Volkoff, [Disinformation, A Weapon of War], 1986[2]

Discussing the vital necessity of keeping the place and time of the Normandy landing a secret, Churchill said:

“In war-time”, I said, “truth is so precious it should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies”. (Discussion of Operation Overlord with Stalin at the Teheran Conference, Nov. 30, 1943[3])

The answer to the previous question may be that:

[The] truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is.
Winston Churchill, Speech in the House of Commons, May 17, 1916[4]

5. Argumentation and manipulation

5.1 Argumentation and propaganda

The study of discursive schematizations is the study of the processes through which the speaker arranges a synthetic, coherent, stable meaning. This constructed meaning is neither a manipulation₂, nor reality itself, nor an illusion of reality, but simply a significant view taken of reality, S. Schematization. To communicate, the speaker must necessarily manipulates₁ the discursive material, but this process is not necessarily intended to manipulate₂ the interlocutor. Manipulation₂ presupposes deliberate falsehood. Considering that all speech is necessarily manipulative would amount to an undue dramatization of the process of signification.

A very tenuous thread separates the study of argumentation as defined by the Treatise on argumentation and that of political propaganda, as defined by Domenach. For Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, “the object of the study of argumentation is the study of the discursive techniques allowing us to induce or to increase the mind’s adherence to the theses presented for its assent.” ([1958]/1969, p. 4; italics in the original). Domenach defines the object of propaganda as “to create, transform or confirm opinions” by means of multi-semiotic processes (image, music, demonstration and crowds) (Domenach 1950, p. 8). This difference may be that between ratio-propaganda and senso-propaganda as defined by Tchakhotine (1939, p. 152). The former is effective “by persuasion, by reasoning”, and the second by “suggestion” (ibid.), that is, by manipulation₂.

5.2 Manipulation and lying

Lies and concealed intentions crucially oppose argumentation to manipulation; a lie being understood as an active lie, asserting a known falsehood, and a passive lie, as failing to tell the whole truth, or relevant parts of it. Manipulative discourse is based on lies, which may be presented as “alternative facts”. Disorienting hints, false cues and misleading prospects are put forward as truths. Even some true information may be mixed with fake information to make it believable.
The denunciation of manipulative discourse is a denunciation of lies; but there is no formal mark of errors and lies; exposing lies necessitates a substantial knowledge of the issue. For this reason, as Hamblin says, “[the logician] is not a judge or court of appeal: and there is no such judge or court” (1970, p. 244); but, as a responsible citizen, he or she must denounce manipulation in favor of a better-informed picture of reality, S. Evaluation.

[1] John Calvin, A Treatise on Relics. Trans. and introd. by Valerian Krasinski. 2^nd ed. Edimburg: Johnstone, Hunter & Co, 1870. Quoted after http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32136/32136-pdf.pdf (08-17-2017)
[2] Vladimir Volkoff, La désinformation, arme de guerre. Lausanne: L’Âge d’Homme, 1986, p. 35.
[3] In The Second World War, Volume V: Closing the Ring (1952), Chapter 21 (Teheran: The Crux), p. 338.
[4] Quoted after https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

In order to build a correct representation of the world, knowledge-oriented theories of argumentation focus on phenomenon concerning the objects of debate (categorizations; physical surroundings of the facts; probable and necessary signs; causal and analogical networks, etc.), and the representational function of language (well-built definitions, univocity, etc.). The construction and strategic management of people and their emotions is essential in the overall orientation of rhetorical discourse towards persuasion and action: its goals are to make people think, feel and act. The accomplished action is the only criterion of successful persuasion, which would be unduly reduced to creating or strengthening the mind’s adherence to a thesis, S. . The rhetorical judge is not persuaded if he does not pronounce in favor of the party who convinced him.
The connections between convictions and actions are far from clear, S. Motives and Reasons. It is said that a MP once replied to someone who tried to convince him to alter his opinion, “you can certainly change my opinion, but you will not change my vote”; this quip highlights the crucial difference between the determiners of representation and those of action.

The rhetorical technique provides three instruments of persuasion (pistis) respectively drawn from the logos, the ethos and the pathos. These instruments, sometimes called “proofs”, are used by the speaker not only to make believe, but also to guide the will and determine the action.

Of the modes of persuasion offered by the spoken word there are three kinds: the first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience in a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. (Rhet., I, 2, 1356a1; RR, p. 105).

All three forms are discourse dependent; logo-ic evidence is purely discursive, while ethotic and pathemic evidence is discursive and para-discursive. The parallel, “ethos, pathos, logos” tends to assimilate these three kinds of evidence, which leads to define rhetorical evidence as any sign, verbal or non-verbal, capable of inducing a belief.

Cicero and the later rhetorical catechisms assign three goals to the speaker engaged in a persuasion process. S/he must prove (probare), please (conciliare), and move (movere) (De Or., II, XXVII, p. 114).
— First teach, that is, inform, narrate and argue, via the logos. . That is to say that the speech must inform, narrate and argue. This teaching thus takes an intellectual approach in achieving persuasion, that of evidence and deduction.
— Yet information and argumentation may be weakened by the boredom and incomprehension of the audience. The listener must therefore be given peripheral indications, and this is the function of ethos (“maybe you don’t quite understand, anyway you can trust me”).
— But logos and ethos do not have the power to trigger the “acting out”, hence the recourse to pathos. It is not enough to see the good, it is still necessary to want it; the almost physical emotional stimuli produced by the orator, that is the pathos, are supposedly the final determinants of the will and action.

Evidence based on logos is considered to be logical”, objective, at least the only one of the three to serve as proof in the proper sense of the term. Firstly, it meets, at least partially, the propositional condition for reasoning (to be expressed in an identifiable statement, evaluable independently from the conclusion is supports), so it is open to refutation. In contrast, pathemic and ethotic evidences, by nature subjective, are expressed indirectly, through the subtlest channels, and are therefore hardly accessible to verbal refutation.

Classical texts insist on the practical superiority of the subjective proofs, ethos and pathos, over objective ones. Aristotle poses the primacy of the ethos: “[the speaker’s] character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion” (Rhet., I, 2, 1356a10; RR, p. 106), and warns against the overly effective use of the pathos. Cicero and Quintilian quasi assimilate ethos to pathos, in order to affirm the practical supremacy of emotions.

In the second half of the twentieth century, different systems of logic were constructed to give a formal representation of argumentative dialogue.

— In addition to his historical presentation, discussion and critique of the “standard treatment of fallacies” Charles L. Hamblin proposed a “formal dialectic” (1970)
— Paul Lorenzen and Kuno Lorenz developed a dialogical logic (Lorenzen, Lorenz, 1978).
— Else Barth and Jan L. Martens constructed a formal dialectic for the analysis of argument (Barth, Martens, 1977).
— Jaakko Hinttika studied the semantic of questions, and the logic of information-seeking dialogs (1981).
— Taking Hamblin’s work as a starting point, Douglas Walton and John Woods developed a logical approach to fallacies (Woods, Walton 1989) and to argumentative dialogues (Walton 1989).

The dialogical logic (Dialogische Logik) of Lorenzen and the school of Erlangen was developed as a contribution to formal logic. This model extended to apply to the definition of rational dialogue, is a precursor of the pragma-dialectic approach to argument.

1. Logical dialogue game

The logical contribution consists in a method of no longer defining logical connectives by the traditional method of truth tables, but by means of permissible or prohibited moves in a “dialogical game”. Consider, for example, the connector “&”, “and”. It can be defined by the truth table method. In dialogical games, “&” is defined by the following moves:

(a) First round:

Proponent: P & Q
Opponent: Attacks P
Proponent: Defends P

If the proponent defends P successfully, he wins round (a). If his or her defense fails, the game is over, and the proponent has lost the game. In the language of truth tables, this corresponds to the truth-table line “if P is false, then the conjunction ‘P & Q’ is false”. In other words, the line “if P is false, then the conjunction ‘P & Q’ is false” is excluded.

If the proponent won round (a), in relation to P, the game continues.

(b) Second round, the opponent attacks Q.

Proponent: P & Q
Opponent: Attacks Q
Proponent: Defends Q

If the proponent defends Q successfully, he wins round (b), and, as round (a) has already been won, the game is won for the proponent. If his or her defense fails, the game is over, the proponent lost the game, and the opponent won it.

In the language of truth-tables, this translates as “P & Q” is true: the proponent won; and “P & Q” is false: the opponent won.

2. Dialogue logic rules and Pragma-Dialectical rules

Dialogical logic uses three kinds of rules (van Eemeren & al. 1996, p. 258)

— Starting rule: the proponent starts by asserting a thesis.
— General rules on legal and illegal moves in dialogue (see above).
— Closing rule, or winning rule, determining who has won the game.

Similar rules apply in Pragma-Dialectic:

— The starting rule corresponds to “Rule 1. Freedom — “The parties must not interfere with the free expression or questioning of points of view” (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Snoeck Henkemans 2002, 182-183).
— The closing rule, or the winning rule corresponds to “Rule 9. Closing — ­If a point of view has not been conclusively defended, the advancing party must withdraw it. If a point of view has been conclusively defended, the other party must withdraw the doubts it has expressed with respect to that point of view” (ibid.).

The other rules are intended to ensure the smooth running of an argumentative dialogue in ordinary language aimed at eliminating differences of opinion.

3. A contribution to the theory of rationality

In a work entitled Logical Propaedeutic: Pre-School of Reasonable Discourse ([1967] / 1984), Kamlah and Lorenzen aim to provide “the building blocks and rules for all rational discourse” (quoted in van Eemeren & al 1996, p. 248). Their basic assumption is that, “in order to prevent them from speaking at cross purposes in interminable monologues, the interlocutors’ linguistic usage in a discussion or conversation must comply with certain norms and rules. Only when they share a number of fixed postulates with respect to linguistic usage can they conduct a meaningful discussion” (van Eemeren & al. 1996, p. 253). The goal of the enterprise is therefore the construction of an “ortholanguage” (Lorenzen & Schwemmer, 1975, p. 24; quoted in id., p. 253), defining the rational dialogical behavior capable of resolving inter-individual contradictions.

There is obviously a great difference between this approach and the interactional approaches to speech in interaction that began to develop at the same time.