Stevens, Katharina
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Stevens, Katharina by Subject "Argumentation"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemAvoiding toxic charity in argumentation(Springer, 2025) Stevens, KatharinaThe interpersonal argumentative principle of charity is widely regarded as a legitimate norm for argumentation. Still, even a cursory look into the literature on argumentative charity reveals that charitable interpretations can easily become toxic. This means that they generate epistemic and moral losses by leading to distorting interpretations instead of preventing them, as the arguments for charity promise. This paper explores why argumentative charity becomes toxic and offers an attempt at identifying a kind of argumentative charity that fulfills the promises that make argumentative charity attractive. It does so by distinguishing three kinds of charity: Egocentric charity, which interprets the argument as strong from the interpreter’s point of view, emic charity, which interprets it as strong from the arguer’s point of view, and complex charity, which unites the two. Only complex charity can avoid toxicity.
- ItemDoes rhetoric have a place in Wolhrapp's theory of argument?(University of Windsor, 2017) Stevens, KatharinaThis paper aims to determine whether rhetoric has a place in Wohlrapp's theory of argumentation. Wohlrapp's own attitude towards rhetoric is ambiguous. There are passages in his book where he grants that rhetoric might have a role to play when it comes to the subjective side of argumentation. Overall, however, he views rhetoric with deep suspicion. I argue that in spite of Wohlrapp's negative attitude, his theory of argumentation would benefit from integrating a theory of rhetoric. I take Wohlrapp's concepts of frame and insight as a starting point to make my case.