Dan Cohen, “Virtue and its Discontents”<\/p>\n
Virtue-argumentation theory is out to try to answer three evaluative questions about argument by way of focusing on one.\u00c2\u00a0 The three questions are:<\/p>\n
What makes an arguer praiseworthy?<\/p>\n
What makes an argument praiseworthy?<\/p>\n
What makes argumentation praiseworthy?<\/p>\n
The virtue theory takes the answer to the first question to be the means to answer the other two. There are two methodological programs for answering any of these questions:<\/p>\n
Top down: argue for an ideal, then apply to cases.<\/p>\n
Bottom up: gather empirical data about specific cases, gain theoretical insights.<\/p>\n
Cohen’s method is a “weird” or “mixed” methodology.\u00c2\u00a0 Theorize from “strange cases”: arguing with god, filibusters, academic arguments, impossible arguments, choosing to argue when you shouldn’t, missing arguments, misplaced arguments.\u00c2\u00a0\u00c2\u00a0 The strategy is to say: here are cases where there are arguments that don’t yield good things, so what is it for arguments to yield something positive?\u00c2\u00a0 What is a satisfying<\/strong> argument?\u00c2\u00a0 Roughly, the thick concept of a satisfying argument should be in the right place, the right time, to the right people, and on the right topics (and for the right reasons).\u00c2\u00a0 That’s a matter of context.\u00c2\u00a0 Notice that validity is neither considered either a necessary nor sufficient condition for being a good argument.\u00c2\u00a0 Not sufficient: e.g., “a and b\u00c2\u00a0 are both P, so a is P” isvalid but not satisfying, and not sufficient: e.g., some arguments are interesting and worthwhile, even if wrongly formed.<\/p>\n So, Cohen poses a sorite: for good arguments, the arguers must argue well.\u00c2\u00a0 To argue well, they must be good arguers.\u00c2\u00a0 And to be good arguers, they must have stable habits of mind — good arguments do not happen by accident.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dan Cohen, “Virtue and its Discontents” Virtue-argumentation theory is out to try to answer three evaluative questions about argument by way of focusing on one.\u00c2\u00a0 The three questions are: What makes an arguer praiseworthy? What makes an argument praiseworthy? What makes argumentation praiseworthy? The virtue theory takes the answer to the first question to be … Continue reading OSSA Day 1: Cohen and Limits of Virtue<\/span>