scholarly journals Pancasila Ideology and Rational Argumentation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zainul Akmal
Keyword(s):  
Rational Argumentation

Putting the Madhyamaka Trick in Context: A Contextualist Reading of Huntington’s Interpretation of Madhyamaka

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-124
Author(s):  
Michael Dorfman
Keyword(s):  
Fifteenth Century ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Correspondence Theory ◽  
The Body ◽  
Rational Analysis ◽  
At Command ◽  
Rational Argumentation ◽  
Logical Fallacies ◽  
Key Terms

In a series of works published over a period of twenty five years, C.W. Huntington, Jr. has developed a provocative and radical reading of Madhyamaka (particularly Early Indian Madhyamaka) inspired by ‘the insights of post- Wittgensteinian pragmatism and deconstruction’ (1993, 9). This article examines the body of Huntington’s work through the filter of his seminal 2007 publication, ‘The Nature of the M?dhyamika Trick’, a polemic aimed at a quartet of other recent commentators on Madhyamaka (Robinson, Hayes, Tillemans and Garfield) who attempt ‘to read N?g?rjuna through the lens of modern symbolic logic’ (2007, 103), a project which is the ‘end result of a long and complex scholastic enterprise … [which] can be traced backwards from contemporary academic discourse to fifteenth century Tibet, and from there into India’ (2007, 111) and which Huntington sees as distorting the Madhyamaka project which was not aimed at ‘command[ing] assent to a set of rationally grounded doctrines, tenets, or true conclusions’ (2007, 129). This article begins by explicating some disparate strands found in Huntington’s work, which I connect under a radicalized notion of ‘context’. These strands consist of a contextualist/pragmatic theory of truth (as opposed to a correspondence theory of truth), a contextualist epistemology (as opposed to one relying on foundationalist epistemic warrants), and a contextualist ontology where entities are viewed as necessarily relational (as opposed to possessing a context-independent essence.) I then use these linked theories to find fault with Huntington’s own readings of Candrak?rti and N?g?rjuna, arguing that Huntington misreads the semantic context of certain key terms (tarka, d???i, pak?a and pratijñ?) and fails to follow the implications of N?g?rjuna and Candrak?rti’s reliance on the role of the pram??as in constituting conventional reality. Thus, I find that Huntington’s imputation of a rejection of logic and rational argumentation to N?g?rjuna and Candrak?rti is unwarranted. Finally, I offer alternate readings of the four contemporary commentators selected by Huntington, using the conceptual apparatus developed earlier to dismiss Robinson’s and Hayes’s view of N?g?rjuna as a charlatan relying on logical fallacies, and to find common ground between Huntington’s project and the view of N?g?rjuna developed by Tillemans and Garfield as a thinker committed using reason to reach, through rational analysis, ‘the limits of thought.’

How Should We Educate Students Whose Cultures Frown upon Rational Disputation?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Public Education ◽  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Democratic Participation ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Full Participation ◽  
Rational Argumentation

`How should public education in democratic states deal with the cultural diversity brought about by contemporary globalization? My suggestion is that key to democratic public education is the obligation to foster in students the skills and abilities, and attitudes and dispositions, needed to participate fully in democratic decision-making. Of central importance are the abilities and dispositions required for critical thinking and rational argumentation: evaluating arguments of others, constructing arguments of one’s own that might rationally persuade one’s fellow citizens, etc. Without these abilities and dispositions, full participation in democratic decision-making is impossible. But fostering them is problematic when students are members of cultures in which argumentation is frowned upon. In this paper I address this tension, and argue that while respecting cultural differences is of the first importance, in democracies it cannot override the requirements of democracy itself. When these two clash, the requirements of democratic participation must take precedence.

Abelard, Peter (1079–1142)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin M. Tweedale
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Western Europe ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Christian Doctrine ◽  
Moral Ideals ◽  
Rational Argumentation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Christian Thought ◽  
The Many ◽  
Aristotelian Tradition

Among the many scholars who promoted the revival of learning in western Europe in the early twelfth century, Abelard stands out as a consummate logician, a formidable polemicist and a champion of the value of ancient pagan wisdom for Christian thought. Although he worked within the Aristotelian tradition, his logic deviates significantly from that of Aristotle, particularly in its emphasis on propositions and what propositions say. According to Abelard, the subject matter of logic, including universals such as genera and species, consists of linguistic expressions, not of the things these expressions talk about. However, the objective grounds for logical relationships lie in what these expressions signify, even though they cannot be said to signify any things. Abelard is, then, one of a number of medieval thinkers, often referred to in later times as ‘nominalists’, who argued against turning logic and semantics into some sort of science of the ‘real’, a kind of metaphysics. It was Abelard’s view that logic was, along with grammar and rhetoric, one of the sciences of language. In ethics, Abelard defended a view in which moral merit and moral sin depend entirely on whether one’s intentions express respect for the good or contempt for it, and not at all on one’s desires, whether the deed is actually carried out, or even whether the deed is in fact something that ought or ought not be done. Abelard did not believe that the doctrines of Christian faith could be proved by logically compelling arguments, but rational argumentation, he thought, could be used both to refute attacks on Christian doctrine and to provide arguments that would appeal to those who were attracted to high moral ideals. With arguments of this latter sort, he defended the rationalist positions that nothing occurs without a reason and that God cannot do anything other than what he does do.

Providing orientation by philosophizing at school. Phenomenological and postmodern validity claims

2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (3 (249)) ◽  
pp. 150-161
Author(s):  
Philipp Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Learning Objective ◽  
The Other ◽  
Lived Body ◽  
First Person ◽  
The Sublime ◽  
The World ◽  
Validity Claims ◽  
Liberal Societies ◽  
Rational Argumentation

In liberal societies it seems to be important to provide orientation by philosophizing at school. We are used to doing this by discussing classic ethics with our students. Here, skills like rational argumentation can be trained. It is the universal rationality that can be applied to different ethical issues and, thus, provide orientation. When it comes to this learning objective phenomenology and postmodernism are mostly not expected to provide assistance. Phenomenology might be seen as just dealing with perception whereas postmodernism is under suspicion for contributing to indecision, arbitrariness and relativism. In this article I will try to outline the potentials of phenomenology and postmodernism in the field of orientation. In the tradition of Husserl’s ‘epoché’ we can let students discover the perspective of a first person and what it means to be a ‘self’. Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty have not only described a certain closeness to the world which can be described as ‘dwelling’ of a lived body. They have also delineated elements of a new ‘postmetaphysical’ and at the same time ‘prehermeneutical’ metaphysics. All this can help to open the depth of self, life, and world. Postmodern thinkers claim a plurality of truths. By this means, these theories can encourage self-empowerment. At the same time, authors like Lévinas (responsibility for the other), Lyotard (the sublime), and Rorty (solidarity) describe new ways of openness towards the world which are not founded by any primal truth and thus provide orientation.

scholarly journals Dialectical Relevance in Persuasion Dialogue

1999 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  
Informal Logic ◽  
The Other ◽  
Central Type ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Rational Argumentation ◽  
Persuasion Dialogue

How to model relevance in argumentation is an important problem for informal logic. Dialectical relcvance is determined by the use of an argument for some purpose in different types of dialogue, according to the ncw dialectic. A central type of dialogue is persuasion dialogue in which one participant uses rational argumentation to try to get the other participant to accept a designated proposition. In this paper, a method for judging relevance in persuasion dialogue is presented. The method is based on using the technique of argument diagramming.

scholarly journals Argumenty z autorytetu a krytyczne myślenie. W nawiązaniu do „Logiki i argumentacji” Andrzeja Kisielewicza

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 77-93
Author(s):  
Mateusz Kotowski
Keyword(s):  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Valuable Contribution ◽  
Rational Argumentation ◽  
The One ◽  
Contemporary Context

Arguments from authority and critical thinking. Side notes toLogic and Argumentation by Andrzej KisielewiczThe article focuses on the role of arguments from authority — or, more precisely, arguments from expert opinion – in rational argumentation and reasoning, in the contemporary context of specialisation of the sciences on the one hand, and the abundance of information on the other. The pretext for this is provided by Andrzej Kisielewicz’s new book: Logika i argumentacja. Praktyczny kurs krytycznego myślenia Logic and Argumentation. A Practical Course In Critical Thinking. I point out that, although Kisielewicz’s book is a valuable contribution to the Polish market of textbooks on argumentation, practical logic and critical thinking, it understates the importance of teaching the ways of proper assessment of arguments from authority, credibility of experts and information sources. I argue that arguments from authority should not be by definition dismissed as fallacies; on the contrary, appealing to authority to expert opinion is an unavoidable element of rational argumentation – at least whenever the discussion requires one to refer to contemporary scientific knowledge. However, relying on experts’ opinions involves genuine risks to the rationality of the debate, many of them having to do with the abundance of pseudoexperts and irresponsibility on the side of some scientists an extensive example is provided by the presentation of statements on GMO’s made by a certain Polish body of scientists. Therefore, the ability to distinguish correct appeals to authority from faulty ones including the ability to tell actual experts from pseudoexperst and reliable sources of information from unreliable ones should be considered a crucial competence which critical thinking courses should teach.

scholarly journals Formal Logic, Rhetoric and Rational Argumentation

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
V. N. Karpovich
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Research ◽  
Formal Logic ◽  
Rational Basis ◽  
Rational Argumentation ◽  
Traditional Sense ◽  
Adequate Communication

The theory of argumentation is supposed to be related to rationality. Traditionally, rationality was defined in terms of logic, and at the same time considered an essential part of the theory of argumentation. But dialectic, in its traditional sense, is also associated with rationality. Thus, rationality reveals the connection between two disciplines, rhetoric as a theory of adequate communication and formal logic as a theory explaining the preservation of truth from premises to the conclusion. This unity of the two aspects of the dialectic conversation reveals the connection between the formal and material aspects of argumentation as a rational basis of scientific research.

scholarly journals Digital health and digital information in the context of big data. An ethical insight on interests

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Mirchev ◽  
A Kerekovska
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Digital Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rational Argumentation ◽  
The Individual

Abstract Background Health data is the key link between the prospects we face in improving health services and the context of current information reality. In the field of public health, the sheer scale of data collecting, digitalization and use is already raising questions related to the ethical norms among different stakeholders. The fact that it is personal data at stake, confronts at least two views: the individual versus the public interest. The more we ease the process of health data aggregation and use, the more risks of possible harms we face. So, whose interest is a priority? Aim To consider if it is possible to balance the conflicting interests of individuals and society in the digital health era by advocating for mutual compromises and rational argumentation. Methods Ethical, documental and historical research. Results The amount of digital health related personal data transforms both opportunities for improved healthcare and research, and possible uncertainties related to improper use, harms, abuses, injustice. This nourishes individuals' doubts and potentially restricts the public interest by putting limits on future use of data. A balance between the confronting interests is needed. Granting ownership rights over data requires entirely new legal frame, since property rights hardly encompass the unique nature of information. Moreover, data is a valuable artefact, and ownership could provoke further commercialization. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to put a separating line between commercial and ideal use of health data for care improvements and science. Our focus should be on the ideal use and essentially on insuring individual's privacy and confidentiality, but not at the expense of public benefits and scientific progress. Conclusions Health information is a powerful tool, and its utilization suggests compromises, which are possible if rational argumentation and support is provided to individuals with the aim to overcome the existing discrepancies. Key messages The appearance of digital health fully represents the dynamic information reality in which constructing a balance between different stakeholder’s interests is vital and not impossible to achieve. Healthcare prospects depend on our individual responsibility and willing to share as we have the data and the means to use and secure it, and we have the duty to do it.

scholarly journals Politics and Science as a Vocation: Can Academics Save us from Post-Truth Politics?

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 575-590
Author(s):  
John Boswell ◽  
Jack Corbett ◽  
Jonathan Havercroft
Keyword(s):  
Social Scientists ◽  
Will To Power ◽  
Means And Ends ◽  
The Social ◽  
Rational Argumentation ◽  
Impossible Task ◽  
Social Science Scholar ◽  
Contemporary Practice ◽  
And Training ◽  
The Ideal

In an apparently post-truth era, the social science scholar, by disposition and training committed to rational argumentation and the pursuit of truth, appeals as the ideal bulwark against excessive politicization of facts and expertise. In this article, we look to the experience of four prominent social scientists who have recently left the academy to enter politics with the aim of using their academic expertise to reshape policy. We use these cases to explore fundamental dilemmas derived from a close reading of Max Weber’s seminal vocation essays of a century ago. Weber observed that politicians were driven by a will to power, whereas academics were driven by a will to truth. We argue that these two competing dispositions create four tensions for the academic turned politician: (1) between calling and commitment, (2) between means and ends, (3) between rationalization and professionalization and (4) between facts and values. Analysing memoirs written by four of the most prominent academics-turned-politicians in recent times, we explore how Weber’s tensions manifest in contemporary practice. Our account reveals that these actors face a daunting, but not impossible, task. Their success depends on wedding the relentless pursuit of ends with the prudent application of political means.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document