Theoretical-Methodological Achievements of the Yerevan School for Argumentation

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.

The rise and fall of rationality in language

The surge of post-truth political argumentation suggests that we are living in a special historical period when it comes to the balance between emotion and reasoning. To explore if this is indeed the case, we analyze language in millions of books covering the period from 1850 to 2019 represented in Google nGram data. We show that the use of words associated with rationality, such as “determine” and “conclusion,” rose systematically after 1850, while words related to human experience such as “feel” and “believe” declined. This pattern reversed over the past decades, paralleled by a shift from a collectivistic to an individualistic focus as reflected, among other things, by the ratio of singular to plural pronouns such as “I”/”we” and “he”/”they.” Interpreting this synchronous sea change in book language remains challenging. However, as we show, the nature of this reversal occurs in fiction as well as nonfiction. Moreover, the pattern of change in the ratio between sentiment and rationality flag words since 1850 also occurs in New York Times articles, suggesting that it is not an artifact of the book corpora we analyzed. Finally, we show that word trends in books parallel trends in corresponding Google search terms, supporting the idea that changes in book language do in part reflect changes in interest. All in all, our results suggest that over the past decades, there has been a marked shift in public interest from the collective to the individual, and from rationality toward emotion.

Discovering Warrants in Political Argumentation

Philosophers deny a proposal for actions can be deduced from arguments for or against the proposal because they may be incompatible. Nevertheless, people in general, and politicians especially, make decisions and present arguments they believe are convincing. We studied politicians who made decisions in complex situations. They spoke about possible actions, their consequences, the probabilities of these consequences and their evaluations, but rarely indicated why their arguments led to their choice. We hypothesized implicit argumentation rules involved and checked whether they predicted those choices. We found seven implicit informal logic rules involved. We also found a random sample of people made the same choices based on the same arguments, suggesting basic warrants by which people argue about decisions.

‘And we are Stuck in One Place, Minister.’ A Study of Evasiveness in Replies to Face-Threatening Questions in Slovak Political Interviews on Scandals (A Combined Approach)

The phenomenon of political evasiveness in the genre of a political interview has been the focus of several discourse studies employing conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis and the social psychology approach. Most of the above-mentioned studies focus on a detailed qualitative analysis of political discourse identifying a wide range of communication strategies that permit politicians to ambiguate their agency and at the same time boost their positive face. Since these strategies may change over time and also be subject to a culture specific environment, the aim of this paper is to discover a) which evasive communicative strategies were employed by Slovak politicians in 2012–2016, b) which lexical substitutions were most frequently used by them to avoid negative connotations of face-threatening questions, and finally, c) which cognitive frames formed a frequent conceptual background of their evasive political argumentation. The paper will draw on a combination of quantitative and qualitative approach to the analysis of non-replies devised by Bull and Mayer (1993) and critical discourse analysis in the sample of five Slovak radio interviews aired on the Rádio Express. The selection of interviews was not random- in each interview the politician was asked highly conflictual questions about bribery, embezzlement or disputes in the coalition. Based on qualitative research of Russian-Slovak political discourse (2009) by Dulebová it is hypothesized that a) the evasive strategy of ‘attack’ on the opposition and ‘attack on the interviewer’ would occur in our sample with the highest prominence in the speech of the former Prime Minister Fico, and b) the politicians accused of direct involvement in scandals would be the most evasive ones.

How much can you say in a tweet? An approach to political argumentation on Twitter

Besides Donald Trump, its most famous user, some 330 million people use Twitter as a platform for communication, much of it political. Yet, given the 280 character limit, how much can you say in a tweet? Although much has already been written about Twitter, little attention has been given to the nature of the argument found there. To begin filling this gap, it is necessary to identify the basic units of such an argument. Identifying them as speech acts, we demonstrate here by discourse analysis how by virtue of the enthymematic quality of public argument, much argument can be communicated even by singular speech acts and even by speech acts other than assertion.

A Theory of Argumentation: The Case of Ethical, Political, and Utopian Thinking

A relevant problem in political philosophy and political theory is the distinction between political and utopian arguments. The boundary between these two types of argumentation may be blurred, which leads us to the point when we often deal with contaminations of both ways of thinking in individual positions. This involves, for example, presenting a utopian argument as a political argument and vice versa. The main purpose of the article is to organize these issues by applying the argumentation model developed by Stephen Toulmin to the analysis of both theoretical approaches. The three main problems of this work are: 1) the distinction between political and ethical arguments; 2) identifying the proper structure of political argumentation; 3) evaluation of the coherence of the idea of a realistic utopia (proposed by John Rawls).

Aeneas the colonist

It has not been sufficiently acknowledged that Virgil repeatedly, even systematically, presents Aeneas in the characteristic and unmistakable guise of a Greek oecist: the Aeneid is, amongst much else, very much an epic of urban settlement and colonization. That so much of the political matter of the Aeneid seems to be clarified when studied in terms of Greek colonial history will perhaps come as a surprise. Colonial settlement is a major thread in the texture of the poem, and a great deal still remains to be done towards elucidating the refinements and complexities of Virgil’s political argumentation.

A.V.Kartashev on the Relationship between Russian Orthodox Parishes in Western Europe and the Moscow Patriarchate in the 1920s — 1930s

The author carries out a discourse analysis of journalistic articles by well-known Russian emigrant historian, theologian, and public figure Anton Kartashev in order to understand his attitude to the schisms of the Russian Orthodox Church caused by the Russian Revolution, and to clarify his methods for shaping his readers’ perceptions of these events. This analysis reveals a complex correlation of political, religious, and historical argumentation. From the very beginning, political arguments were pushed into the background by a statement of apolitism, which initially extended to Russian emigrants. Subsequently, he abandoned apolitism as a principle of activity in exile in order to consistently pursue a policy of intransigence with the Bolsheviks. Political argumentation remained in the background compared to historical and religious facets, since the church should not interfere in politics. He consistently historicized contemporary experiences, based on a historical perspective, to give an assessment of the political orientation and concrete actions of the hierarchs. This created an illusory opportunity to maintain the legal subordination to the Moscow Patriarchate, which increasingly depended on the Bolshevik regime. He saw the post-revolutionary history of the Russian Orthodox Church as a series of schisms that weakened it. This gradually brought a precise religious argument to the forefront in substantiating specific measures to preserve the canonical structure of Western European parishes headed by the Metropolitan Eulogius, at the break with the Synod of Bishops in Sremski Karlovtsi and with the Moscow Patriarchate.

Emotive Meaning in Political Argumentation

Donald Trump’s speeches and messages are characterized by terms that are commonly referred to as “thick” or “emotive,” meaning that they are characterized by a tendency to be used to generate emotive reactions. This paper investigates how emotive meaning is related to emotions, and how it is generated or manipulated. Emotive meaning is analyzed as an evaluative conclusion that results from inferences triggered by the use of a term, which can be represented and assessed using argumentation schemes. The evaluative inferences are regarded as part of the connotation of emotive words, which can be modified and stabilized by means of recontextualizations. The manipulative risks underlying the misuse and the redefinition of emotive words are accounted for in terms of presuppositions and implicit modifications of the interlocutors’ commitments.