Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation & Rhetoric along with the PhD in Argumentation Studies at the University of Windsor invite you to a talk by
Daniel Mejía, PhD Candidate in Argumentation Studies
Rhetorical Distance, Closing Gaps in Deep Disagreements
Abstract: In The Logic of Deep Disagreement, Fogelin (1985) reflects on the pedagogical and analytical limitations of the informal logic movement. At the risk of turning students into skeptics, he says, the argumentative analysis we teach should further consider the context of the argument. In his terms, this means to stop understanding argument as a set of propositions and to consider it rather as a product of the human activity of arguing (which has different purposes and forms). The normality of the argumentative context defines, in Fogelin's proposal, the essential conditions for arguing, as well as the depth of a disagreement. That is, it is the normality of the context, marked by prior agreement on "many things," that marks the difference between ordinary and deep disagreements. Conversely, the abnormality of the context is expressed in the ineffectiveness of reasons and enables the possibility of resorting to persuasion to deal with deep disagreement. In this presentation, we engage critically with Fogelin's notion of normality and explore alternative ways of understanding persuasion. In doing so, we attempt to recover senses of rhetoric that can contribute to the analysis and management of social disagreements that appear to be irresolvable. Also, to illustrate the situation of deep disagreement, we turn to studies of anthropology and intercultural dialogue to analyze the Argumentative context of encounters between cultures.
Friday, October 20, 2023
Chrysler Hall North, 1163