Elephant,
Had this quote saved in a paper I once wrote.
In this snippet, self-inclusion is treated neutrally as an argumentative
technique. Toulmin treats it more like a fallacy, but I don't have those
books.
Chaim Perelman:
We should like also to indicate several situations of particular interest in
which the incompatibility is not between two opposed rules, but between one
rule and the consequences resulting from the very fact that it has been
affirmed. We shall designate this kind of incompatibility, which is found
in various forms, under the generic term of "autophagia". Generalizing a
rule, applying it without exception, may lead to preventing its application,
indeed to destroying the rule itself..
.Retort, which in the Middle Ages was known as "redarguitio elenchica" is
the best-known example of autophagia. It is an argument which claims to
show that the act by which a rule is attacked is incompatible with the
principle which supports the attack..
Thus to anyone who objects to the principle of contradiction it may be
retorted that his very objection, through the fact that he claims to speak
the truth and draw from it the consequence that his opponent is affirming
what is false, presupposes the principle of contradiction; the very act
implies what the words deny. The argument is quasi-logical, because, in
order to make the incapability evident, an interpretation must be made of
the act by which the opponent opposes a rule. And this interpretation,
necessary to retort, could itself become the object of controversy..
An amusing case of the application of retort, which suggests the
possibility of avoiding it, is supplied by the story of the policeman in a
provincial theatre who, when the audience was about to sing [a song],
climbed on the stage to warn that anything not announced on the play-bill
was forbidden. "How about you?" asked one of the audience, "are you on the
play-bill?" In this example the policeman by his announcement contradicted
the very principle he was announcing, whereas in cases of retort on
presupposes the principle one rejects, but the structure of the argument is
the same.
Another circumstance which can lead to autophagy is that in which, instead
of opposing a statement to the act by which it is affirmed, one applies the
principle to itself: the autophagy results from self-inclusion. The
positivists, who insist that every proposition is either analytical or
empirical, may be asked whether what the have just said is an analytical
proposition or an empirical one. The philosopher who insists that every
judgment is a judgment of reality or of value, may be asked what is the
status of his assertion. The person who argues against the validity of any
nondemonstrative reasoning may be asked what is the value of his own
argumentation. Not all self-inclusion leads to autophagy, but it does
require thinking about the validity of the framework of classification which
is to be set up, and thereby leads to an increase of awareness..
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:06 BST