Metaargumentation from the Perspective of Metaphilosopy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v2i1.47Keywords:
metatheory, metapilosophy, metaargumentation, Plato's model of metatheory, Rhodesian model of metatheory, Plato's model of metaargumentation, Rhodesian model of metaargumentationAbstract
In modern scientific and philosophical publications the term “meta” got different meanings that even sometimes contradict one another and usually do not keep their exact meanings resulting in certain conceptual chaotic picture. This situation demands to introduce necessary corrections and formulate strict interpretations for suggested conceptions of met a theoretical systems.
The goal of this paper is applying academician G.Brutian’s conception of Rhodesian and Plato’s models of the theory of argumentation and the possibility of building the system of meta-argumentation by revealing the field of application of these two models. This paper proves that the Rhodesian model can be successfully applied to non-formal systems having methodological rather than axiological nature if the demands of the model are satisfied. This requires also to take into account the possible variations of Rhodesian models of argumentation and choose the most effective of them. On the other hand the Plato's model of argumentation is applicable to fields of argumentation that are completely formalized and could be presented as whole general theory.
Downloads
References
2. ????????, ?. (2009): «????????????? ????????? ? ?????????? ??????????? ? ??????????????????? ??????????». - ???????? ?? ??????? XXI ???? ?????????????????: ???? 8 (?? 21-43): ?????. ??????????????? ?????????? ???????? ????????????????:
3. ????????????, ?.?. (2007): «?????????? ? ??????????????». - ???????????????? ? ???????????????????? (?? 186-190): ?????. ??????????????? ?????????? ???????? ????????????????:
4. ??????, ?. (1984). “?? ????? ???????????? ?????????????”. ? ??.: ??????? ?????????? ??????. ?????????? ???????????? ????????. ?????.
5. ??????, ?. (1985). “????????? ? ?????????????”. ? ??.: ??????? ?????????. ? 9, ??. 85-90.
6. ????????, ?.?. (2009). ?????????????. ?????? ????????-???????????? ????????. ??????, ?????. ??? ?-????. ?????????? ???????? ????. ???????? ?????????.
7. American Philosophical Quarterly. (1983), vol. 20, ? 1.
8. Carnap, R. (1948). Introduction to Semantics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
9. Cultural Hermeneutics. (1977), vol. 4. ? 2.
10. Cohen, D. (2010). Going for broke: The meta-argumentation of desperation strategies. In: 7ht Inter¬national ISSA Conference on Argumentation. June 29-2 July, 2010, (p. 97). University of Amsterdam.
11. Finocchiaro, M. (2010). “Meta-Argumentation”. In: 7ht International ISSA Conference on Argumentation. June 29-2 July, 2010, (p. 81). University of Amsterdam.
12. Gill, J. (1982). Metaphilosophy. An Introduction. Washington.
13. Groarke, L. (2010). “Emotional arguments: Their pedigree and their cultivation”. In: 7ht International ISSA Conference on Argumentation. June 29-2 July, 2010 (p. 118). University of Amsterdam.
14. Lazerovitz, M. (1977). The Language of Philosophy. Dordrecht, Boston.
15. McEvoy, S. (2010). “Verification and argumentation”. In: 7ht International ISSA Conference on Argumentation. June 29-2 July, 2010, (p. 150). University of Amsterdam.
16. Metaphilosophy (1964). State University of New York at Albany, Co-Editors: T.Bynum, W.Ruse, M.Lazerovitz. Studies in Metaphilosophy. London, New York.
17. Moris, Ch. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Science.
18. Nagel, E. and Newman, J.R. (1964). Godel’s Proof. New York University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC). CC BY-NC allows users to copy and distribute the article, provided this is not done for commercial purposes. The users may adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material giving appropriate credit, and providing a link to the license. The full details of the license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
