WI_Rifleman Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 In my persuasive writing class we are learning about the Toulmin system of organizing argumentation. This system was obviously created by Stephen Toulmin in the late 1950s. He claimed it was necessary because formal logic did not handle a lot of argumentation. From what my TA tells me it is a revision on Aristotle. Does anyone know anything on Mr. Toulmin? It seems to me as if it is a subjective view of argumentation, but then again my skills in rhetoric are not highly developed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 It seems to me as if it is a subjective view of argumentation, but then again my skills in rhetoric are not highly developed. What do you mean by "subjective"? In Objectivism, "subjectivism" has one meaning in a metaphysical context, and another meaning in an epistemological context. Of course, the two are related. (There are also related meanings in ethics, esthetics, and psychology.) For anyone new to Objectivism, see: "Subjectivism," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pp. 486-490. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WI_Rifleman Posted March 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 What do you mean by "subjective"? In Objectivism, "subjectivism" has one meaning in a metaphysical context, and another meaning in an epistemological context. Of course, the two are related. (There are also related meanings in ethics, esthetics, and psychology.) For anyone new to Objectivism, see: "Subjectivism," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, pp. 486-490. I am not sure I used the word 'subjective' correctly, but one of the things I found very problematic with Toulmin is how he defined a reasonable argument. His definition was something like this 'an argument that will resound with a majority of reasonable people'. I find this definition incredibly vague. When I asked my TA about this she told me that it was supposed to be vague and flexible. My response was, "What good is a definition if it isn't definitive?" This definition brings more questions into my mind than answers. What is a reasonable person? What constitutes a majority? 51%? or would 49% do? What if your argument is spot on but a majority of the people hold vastly different beliefs than you (such as arguing evolution to Christians)? That is what I meant by subjective. I do not have access to The Ayn Rand Lexicon at this present moment. I am sorry I couldn't help you out further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.