Theoretical-Methodological Achievements of the Yerevan School for Argumentation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24231/wisdom.v20i4.644Keywords:
Georg Brutian, Yerevan School for Argumentation, reasoning, definition of argumentation, the structure of argumentation, forms of argumentation, logic of argumentation, argumentative discourse, language of argumentation, meta-argumentationAbstract
The Yerevan School for Argumentation (YSA) perhaps is the most brilliant manifestation of Armenian philosophical thought. Moreover, it is one of the remarkable results of the centuries-old Armenian philo- sophical culture that has gained world recognition. In the 18th (Brighton 1988; see: Brutian, G., 1988) and 19th (Moscow, 1993) World Congresses of Philosophy organized by the Federation of International Socie- ties for Philosophy, Academician Georg Brutian, the founder and head of the YSA, was entrusted with organizing and chairing Round tables on the discussion of the modern theory of argumentation organized within the framework of these conferences.
Brutian?s fundamental publications served as the basis for the directions of the School. They put for- ward principles concerning the definition of argumentation, the structure of argumentation, the language of argumentation, the role of logic, and means of persuasion in the structure of argumentation, the rules of political argumentation, etc.
The goal of the present work is to analyze and generalize the theoretical-methodological and conceptu- al results and approaches developed in the YSA, to examine their role in the system of modern philosophi- cal and logical theorems, as well as in the modern theories of argumentation, to present the frame of argu- mentation discourse and its methodological analysis developed in the School, to review the questions of the theory of meta-argumentation, to analyze the history and theoretical-methodological bases of for- mation and institutionalization of the YSA in the context of the developments of the world philosophical thought and the aspect of its contribution to world scientific thought, to suggest a general conception of scientific achievements of the School by a comparative analysis concerning other international centres.
Downloads
References
Alekseev, ?. (1991). Argumentatsiya, poznanie, obshchenie (Argumentation, cognition, communication, in Russian). Moscow: publishing house of the Moscow University.
Amirkhanyan, A. (1998). Eksplikatsiya ponyatiya obosnovaniya (Explication of the concept justification, in Russian). Yerevan: Publishing House NAS RA.
Atanesyan, A. (2000). Gegelevskaya kontseptsiya obosnovaniya (Hegelís concept of justification, in Russian). Yerevan: Publishing House of NAS RA.
Atanesyan, A. (2006). Himnavorman praktikan & tesutíyunyí (Practice and theory of justification, in Armenian). In Inchpes em es tesnum XXI dari pilisopayutíyunyí (How I see the philosophy of the 21st century? in Armenian) (Vol. 5, pp. 59-66). Yerevan: ìInternational Academy for Philosophyî Publishing House.
Atayan, Ed. (1988). Pastarkman lezun (The language of argumentation, in Armenian). Yerevan: Publishing House of NAS RA.
Avagyan, M. (1999a). Pastarkman votwyí & lezun (The style and language of argumentation, in Armenian). Yerevan: Publishing House of NAS RA.
Avagyan, M. (1999b). Lezvi tarber gorcíarnutíyunneryí pastarkman yíntíacqum (Various linguistic operations in the process of argumentation, in Armenian). Yerevan: Publishing House of NAS RA.
Avagyan, M. (2000). Pastarkum & lezu (Argumentation and language, in Armenian). (PhD dissertation, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia).
Avagyan, V. (2004). Twshmartutíyun, oíbyektivutyun, pastarkum (Truth, objectivity, argumentation, in Armenian). Yerevan: Publishing House of NAS RA.
Brutian, G. (1978a). Filosofskaya priroda tieorii argumentatsii i priroda filosofkoi argumentatsii. Statíya pervaya (The philosophical nature of the theory of argumentation and the nature of philosophical argumentation. Art. one, in Russian). Filosofskie nauki 1 (Philosophical Sciences 1, in Russian), 1, 53-60.
Brutian, G. (1978b). Filosofskaya priroda teorii argumentatsii i priroda filosofkoi argumentatsii. Statíya vtoraya. Priroda filosofkoi argumentatsii (The philosophical nature of the theory of argumentation and the nature of philosophical argumentation. Article two: The nature of Philosophical argumentation, in Russian). Filosofskie nauki 2 (Philosophical Sciences 2, in Russian),†2, 38-46.
Brutian, G. (1979). On philosophical argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 12, 2, 77-90.
Brutian, G. (1983). Perspektivy issledovanii aktualínykh problem teorii argumentatsii (Perspectives of research of argumentation theory urgent problems, in Russian). Filosofskie nauki (Philosophical Sciences, in Russian), 6, 63-72.
Brutian, G. (1984). Argumentatsiya (Argumentation, in Russian). Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.
Brutian, G. (1987). Novaya volna interesa k filosofskoi argumentatsii (A new wave of interest in philosophical argumentation, in Russian). In ìFilosofiya I kulíturaî XVII vsemirnyi filosofskii congress: problemy, diskussii, suzhdeniya (ìPhilosophy and cultureî XVII World philosophical congress: Problems, discussions, judgments, in Russian) (pp. 263-275). Moscow: ìNaukaî publishing house.
Brutian, G. (1988). Argumentation in manís activity. In The problem of man in philosophy (pp. 183-189). Moscow: Social Sciences Today.
Brutian, G. (1991). The architectonics of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference of argumentation (pp. 61-63). Amsterdam: SICSAT.
Brutian, G. (1992a). Ocherk teorii argumentatsii (Outline of the theory of argumentation, in Russian). Yerevan: Publishing House of NAS RA.
Brutian, G. (1992b). The theory of argumentation, its main problems and investigative perspectives. In J. Pietarinen (Ed.), Problems of philosophical argumentation. I. General problems (pp. 5-17). Turku: University of Turku.
Brutian, G. (2000). Logic, language and argumentation in projection of philosophical knowledge. Lisbon: Grafica De Coimbra Ltd.
Brutian, G., & Margaryan, H. (1991). The Language of Argumentation (in collaboration with). In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international conference of argumentation (pp. 546-550). Amsterdam: SICSAT.
Brutian, G., & Narsky, I. (Eds.) (1986). Filosofskie problemy argumentatsii (Philosophical problems of argumentation, in Russian). Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Armenian SSR.
Brutian, L. (1991). On the types of argumentative discourse. In Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst R. (Eds), Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation (pp. 559-563). Amsterdam: SICSAT.
Brutian, L. (1992). Implication and implicity in the language of argumentation. In Pietarinen, J. (Ed.), Problems of philosophical argumentation. II Special problems (pp. 1-10). Finland: University of Turku.
Djidjian, R. (1984). Dokazatelístvo, obosnovanie, ubezhdenie, argumrntatsiya (Proof, justification, persuasion, argumentation, in Russian). Voprosy folosofii (Philosophy Issues, in Russian), 4, 95-108.
Djidjian, R. (2016). Transformational logic and social transformation. WISDOM, 6(1), 16-20. https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v1i6.58
Dung, P., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (2006). Dialectic proof procedures for assumption based, admissible argumentation. Artificial Intelligence, 170(2), 114-159).
Grennan, W. (1984). Argument evaluation. New York: University Press of America, Incorporated.
Hakobdjanyan, E. (1991). Khudozhestvennaya argumentatsiya (Fiction argumenttation, in Russian). Yerevan: Publishing House of NAS RA.
Hambartzumian, V. (1990, February 21). Sovetakan Hayastan (Soviet Armenia, in Armenian) newspaper.
Hovhannisyan, H. H. (2005). Píastarkman himnaharcery haj píilisopíajakan mtqi patmutíjan hamateqstum. Girq 1. Yeznik Koghbatsi, David Anhaght, Grigor Tatevatsi (Argumentation issues in the context of the history of Armenian philosophical thought. Book 1. Three outlines: Yeznik Koghbatsi, David Anhaght, Grigor Tatevatsi, in Armenian). Yerevan: Publishing House of NAS RA. Retrieved from https://chairoflogicphiloscult.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/girq-1.pdf
Hovhannisyan, H. H. (2006, December). Language of argumentation. Journal of Applied Electromagnetism (JAE), 113-123.
Hovhannisyan, H. H. (2007). Argumentation and Metaargumentation, Philosophy and Metaphilosophy, Book 1. Yerevan: International Academy for Philosophy Publishing, pp. 64-67.
Hovhannisyan, H. H. (2009). Píastarkman himnaharcery haj píilisopíayakan mtqi patmutíyan hamateqstum. Girq 2. Píastarkman er&anjan dproc (Argumentation issues in the context of the history of Armenian philosophical thought. Book 2. Yerevan school for argumentation, in Armenian). Yerevan: International Academy for Philosophy Press. Retrieved from https://chairoflogicphiloscult.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/text.pdf
Hovhannisyan, H. H. (2015). Meta-argumentation as an argumentation metatheory. Metaphilosophy, 46, 3, 479-487. https://doi.org/10.11111/meta.12143
Hovhannisyan, H. H., & Djidjian R. (2017). Building a general theory of meta-argumentation. Metaphilosophy, 48(3), 345-354. https://doi.org/10.11111/meta.12242
Hovhannisyan, H. O. (2015). Phastarkum ev hretorutíyun. Dzernark iravagitutyan magistrantneri ev iravakan volorti ashkhatoghneri hamar (Argumentation and Rhetoric. A Manual for Undergraduates of Law Faculties and Lawyers, in Armenien). French University in Armenia. Yerevan: ìArtagersî.
Hovhannisyan, H. O. (2019). Banavechi tesutíyun ev arvest: pilisopayakan qnnakhosutyun (The theory and art of discussion: Philosophical tractate, in Armenian). Yerevan: YSU Publishing House. Retrieved from http://publishing.ysu.am/files/Banavets.pdf
Hovhannisyan, H. O. (2020). Traditional and modern concepts of rhetoric: Six peculiarities. WISDOM, 16(3), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v16i3.396
Hovhannisyan, H. O. (2021). Epistemological-methodological and applied aspects of Georg Brutianís philosophy. WISDOM, 18(2), 188-192. https://doi.org/10.242234/wisdom.v18i2.570
Hovhannisyan, S. (1984). Osnovnye komponenty argumentatsii (Main components of argumentation, in Russian). Yerevan: Publishing house YSU.
Hovhannisyan, S. (1992). System forming means of concepts in the theory of argumentation. In J. Pietarinen (Ed.), Problems of philosophical argumentation. II Special problems (pp. 11-21). Finland: University of Turku.
Manasyan, A. (1984). Filosofskie motivy nauchnoi argumentatsii (Philosophical motives of scientific argumentation, in Russian). In M. Danelyan (Ed.), Filosofskie problemy argumentatsii (Philosophical problems of argumentation, in Russian) (pp. 83-85). Yerevan: Publishing House of NAS RA.
Markaryan, Ed. (1984). Vozmozhností diskussii mezhdu filosofom I ne-filosofom (Possibility of discussions between a philosopher and a non-philosopher, in Russian). Voprosy Folosofii (Philosophy Issues, in Russian), 4, 37-52.
Markaryan, Ed. (1988). Razlichnye podkhody I tipy argumentatsii pri obosnovanii teorii kulítury (Different approaches and types of argumentation in substantiating the theory of culture, in Russian). In G. Brutian & I. Narsky (Eds.), Filosofskie problemy argumentatsii (Philosophical problems of argumentation, in Russian) (pp. 258-274). Yerevan: Publishing House of NAS RA.
Perelman, Ch., & OIbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. London: University of Notre Dame Press.
Pietarinen, J. (Ed.). (1992). Problems of philosophical argumentation. I. General problems. Finland: University of Turku.
Ruzavin, G. (1997). Logika i argumentatsiya (Logic and argumentation, in Russian). Moscow: Culture and Sort, UNITY.
Shakaryan, H. (1984). Semanticheskoe edinstvo kontseptualínogo apparata filosofii i filosofskaya argumentatsiya (Semantic unity of the conceptual apparatus of philosophy and philosophical argumentation, in Russian). Voprosy Folosofii (Philosophy ISSUES, in Russian), 4, 82-95.
Shakaryan, H. (1988). Problema urovnei filosofskoi refleksii i filosofskaya argumentatsiya (The problem of levels of philosophical reflection and philosophical argumentation, in Russian). In Teoriya poznaniya, logika. Preprinty dokladov sovetskikh uchenykh k XVIII Vsemirnomu filosofkomu kongressu ìFilosofskoe ponimanie chelovekaî (Velikobritaniya, Braiton, 21-27 avgusta, 1988 g.) (Theory of knowledge, logic. Preprints of reports of Soviet scientists for the XVIII World Congress of Philosophy: The problem of man in philosophy (Great Britain, Brighton, 21-27 August, 1988), in Russian) (pp. 8-14). Moscow: Institute of Philosophy.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 scientific journal WISDOM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 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/.
