找回密码
 To register

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区

Titlebook: Dialogical Rhetoric; An Essay on Truth an Wouter H. Slob Book 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002 Argument.dialectic.dialog

[复制链接]
查看: 29138|回复: 38
发表于 2025-3-21 16:54:12 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
书目名称Dialogical Rhetoric
副标题An Essay on Truth an
编辑Wouter H. Slob
视频video
丛书名称Argumentation Library
图书封面Titlebook: Dialogical Rhetoric; An Essay on Truth an Wouter H. Slob Book 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002 Argument.dialectic.dialog
描述Contemporary developments in philosophy have declared truth as such troublesome, and not merely gaining access to it. In a systematic survey this study investigates what is at stake when truth is given up. A historical overview shows how the current problem of truth came about, and suggests ways to overcome rather than to repair the problem. .A key issue resulting from the loss of truth is the lack of normativity. Truth provided an alternative understanding of normativity. Elaborating on the `dialectical shift‘ in logic, a dialogico-rhetorical understanding of normativity is presented. Rather than requiring truth, agreement, or rationality, dialogico-rhetorical normativity is the result of a balance of particular standards. This type of normativity is shaped within discussions - by advancing and accepting arguments - and is not located in sets of predetermined rules. The result is a `small‘ but strong form of normativity. .If this understanding of normativity is viable, one of the central problems of contemporary philosophy, the problem of incommensurability, can be seen in a different light. As a result, truth reappears again. Surviving the postmodern criticisms, it is a matter of
出版日期Book 2002
关键词Argument; dialectic; dialogue; logic; postmodernism; rhetoric
版次1
doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0476-3
isbn_softcover978-1-4020-0909-9
isbn_ebook978-94-010-0476-3Series ISSN 1566-7650 Series E-ISSN 2215-1907
issn_series 1566-7650
copyrightSpringer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002
The information of publication is updating

书目名称Dialogical Rhetoric影响因子(影响力)




书目名称Dialogical Rhetoric影响因子(影响力)学科排名




书目名称Dialogical Rhetoric网络公开度




书目名称Dialogical Rhetoric网络公开度学科排名




书目名称Dialogical Rhetoric被引频次




书目名称Dialogical Rhetoric被引频次学科排名




书目名称Dialogical Rhetoric年度引用




书目名称Dialogical Rhetoric年度引用学科排名




书目名称Dialogical Rhetoric读者反馈




书目名称Dialogical Rhetoric读者反馈学科排名




单选投票, 共有 1 人参与投票
 

0票 0.00%

Perfect with Aesthetics

 

0票 0.00%

Better Implies Difficulty

 

1票 100.00%

Good and Satisfactory

 

0票 0.00%

Adverse Performance

 

0票 0.00%

Disdainful Garbage

您所在的用户组没有投票权限
发表于 2025-3-21 21:55:18 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-22 04:18:45 | 显示全部楼层
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0476-3Argument; dialectic; dialogue; logic; postmodernism; rhetoric
发表于 2025-3-22 07:40:49 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-22 10:23:46 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-22 13:11:47 | 显示全部楼层
Steven Burgess,Casey Rentmeesterthey had something to say about the concept of truth, said surprisingly little: they were far more interested in truths than in “truth”’ (Pitcher, 1964, 1). Pitcher suggests that the interest in theories of truth was triggered by the ‘apparently outrageous things which the Absolute Idealists of the
发表于 2025-3-22 18:26:57 | 显示全部楼层
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9442-8s yielding incompatible conclusions cannot be permitted. We have seen that pre-modern philosophy had no need to defend its (mono-)logic, but as soon as the modernist ’turn to the subject’ had its logical counterpart in the syntactical approach of Frege a problem emerged. Modern formal logic allowed
发表于 2025-3-23 00:00:22 | 显示全部楼层
Frank C. Richardson,Robert C. Bishopion is what accounts for such normative distinctions. As all of these distinctions are debatable (at least from a human perspective), we can see them as outcomes of discussions. We might therefore generalize the problem as a matter of evaluating arguments and concentrate on the distinction between g
发表于 2025-3-23 04:02:29 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-23 07:52:57 | 显示全部楼层
Patrick Londen,Philip Walsh,Jeff Yoshiminormativity differs from a dialectical approach, as well as from a mono-logical one. The latter holds that there is only one logic that controls the correctness of inferences. I argued that mono-logic requires a strong understanding of truth, and I hope to have explained sufficiently that we should
 关于派博传思  派博传思旗下网站  友情链接
派博传思介绍 公司地理位置 论文服务流程 影响因子官网 SITEMAP 大讲堂 北京大学 Oxford Uni. Harvard Uni.
发展历史沿革 期刊点评 投稿经验总结 SCIENCEGARD IMPACTFACTOR 派博系数 清华大学 Yale Uni. Stanford Uni.
|Archiver|手机版|小黑屋| 派博传思国际 ( 京公网安备110108008328) GMT+8, 2025-5-18 04:43
Copyright © 2001-2015 派博传思   京公网安备110108008328 版权所有 All rights reserved
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表