par Ferry, Victor 
;Danblon, Emmanuelle
Référence Revue internationale de philosophie, 68, 270, page (403-418)
Publication Publié, 2014-12-01
;Danblon, Emmanuelle Référence Revue internationale de philosophie, 68, 270, page (403-418)
Publication Publié, 2014-12-01
Article révisé par les pairs
| Résumé : | This paper discusses the usefulness of the Topics as a method to develop citizens’ argumentation skills. To do so, we compare criteria to determine when a line of argument is atopos (out of place) in three different argumentative contexts: the philosophical inquiry, the dialectical discussion and the rhetorical interaction. In the philosophical inquiry, the philosopher will use a logical criterion to determine what is out of place. In the dialectical discussion, arguers have to agree on what should be considered as out of place. The criterion is thus a conventional one. In the realm of rhetoric (i.e., the civic sphere), arguers’ force of persuasion will determine what is out of place. Considering this discontinuity between rhetoric and dialectic, one might question the usefulness of the Topics: should we train students to argue within dialectical rules for discussion or should we give them the rhetorical means to defend their conceptions of the borders of rationality? |
