Abstract
In this study, I proposed to understand normativity from the standpoint of a dialogical approach to rhetoric. A dialogico-rhetorical understanding of normativity differs from a dialectical approach, as well as from a mono-logical one. The latter holds that there is only one logic that controls the correctness of inferences. I argued that mono-logic requires a strong understanding of truth, and I hope to have explained sufficiently that we should be skeptical about the possibilities of appealing to this kind of truth. This conclusion is affirmed by many logicians who, over the last thirty years or so, have preferred a dialectical approach to logic. They acknowledge that there is more than one sensible system of logic and that we should choose one conventionally to be in force. Yet, they argue, the choice cannot be a matter of mere will: it must be a rational one. Whereas mono-logic normativity depends upon truth, we have seen that dialectical rationality depends upon rationality.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Slob, W.H. (2002). Conclusion. In: Dialogical Rhetoric. Argumentation Library, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0476-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0476-3_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-0909-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0476-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive