Chapter
Redefinition of ‘Culture’
Redefinition of ‘Security’
Redefinition of ‘Freedom’
Quasi-Definition of ‘Blackguard’
Quasi-Definition of ‘Democracy’
Quasi-Definition of ‘Terrorist’
3. Modifying Meaning and Emotions: Persuasive Definitions
2 The Emotions in Our Words
1. The Force of Ethical Words
1.1. The Dimensions of Emotive Meaning
1.2. The Reasons behind Value Judgments
1.3. Reasons and Meanings
2. The Structure of Emotive Words
Redefinition of ‘Natural Man’
Redefinition of ‘Marriage’
Scheme for Value-Based Practical Reasoning
Argumentation Scheme 1: Argument from Positive Value
Argumentation Scheme 2: Argument from Negative Value
Argumentation Scheme 3: Argument from verbal
classification
Argumentation Scheme 4: Practical Reasoning
Argumentation Scheme 5: Argument from positive
consequences
Argumentation Scheme 6: Argument from negative
consequences
Quasi-Definition of ‘Marriage’
Quasi-Definition of ‘War’
2.1. The Descriptive Meaning of Ethical Terms
2.2. Emotive Meaning: Emotions Dependent and Independent of Reality
2.3. Emotions Triggered by Words: Values in the Frames
3. The Logical Dimension of Emotive Meaning: Reasoning from Values
3.1. The Reasoning Process within Words
3.2. The Prescriptive Meaning: Values as Principles of Action
4.1. Argument from Values
4.2. The Logical Components of Prescriptive Meaning
5. Hierarchies and Conflicts of Values
6. The Reasonableness of Emotions
3 When Words Are Reasoning
1. Why Definitions Cannot Be Persuasive
2. Definitions as Premises: Reasoning for Classifying
2.1. The Logical Structure of Classification
2.2. Reasoning from What Is Acceptable
2.3. The Structure of Reasoning from Classification
3. Definitions and Definitional Structure
4. The Nature of Definition: The Tradition and the Theory of Predicables
5. Strategies of Obscurity: The Correctness of Definitions
6. Strategies of Circularity: The Logic of Prior Terms
7. The Logical Force of Definition by Genus and Difference
7.1. The Logic of the Genus
7.2. Specifying the Genus
7.3. The Logical Force of the Genus-Difference Definition
2.3. Implicit Definitions
IMPLICIT REDEFINITION OF ‘PERSECUTION’
3. Describing Speech Acts
4. Speech Acts of Defining
4.1. Defining for Informing
4.2. Defining for Reminding
4.3. Definitions as Standpoints
4.4. Declaring a Definition
4.5. Defining for Committing
5. Acts of Non-Commitment
5.1. Omitting Definitions
5.2. Taking Redefinitions for Granted
6. Strategies of Ambiguity
ANCIENT REDEFINITIONS OF ‘TREASON’
2. Presupposition Triggers
2.1. Sentence Presuppositions: Semantic Presuppositions
2.2. Sentence Presuppositions: Syntactic Presuppositions
2.3. Inter-Sentence Presuppositions
2.4. Dialogical Presuppositions
2.5. Summary: Levels of Presupposition
3.1. Sentence Presuppositions
3.2. Intra-Sentence Presuppositions
3.3. Dialogical Presuppositions
4. The Dialectical and Rhetorical Force of Presupposition: The Act of Presupposing
4.1. The Act of Presupposing
4.2. The Worlds Presupposed
5. The Limits of Presuppositions
5.2. The Conditions of Accommodation
5.3. The Conditions of Presupposing
6. Presuming Knowledge: Presupposition as Presumptive Reasoning
6.1. Presumptive Reasoning
6.2. Presumptions as Epistemic Bridges
6.3. Assessing Presuppositions
6.4. Presuppositions as Presumptions
7. The Dialectics of Presupposition
7.1. The Burdens of Presupposition
7.2. Dialectical Uses of Presupposition
7.3. Presupposing Redefinitions
8. Presuppositions as Rhetorical Strategies
8.1. Presuppositions as Implicit Character Attacks
8.2. Presuppositions as Instruments to Alter the Weight of Evidence
8.3. Presuppositions as Instruments for Fabricating Evidence
8.4. Presuppositions as Instruments for Jumping to Conclusions
8.5. The Rhetorical Power of Presuppositions
6 Dialogues and Commitments
1.1. The Structure of Persuasion Dialogues
1.2. Commitments and Persuasion Dialogues
2. Models of Persuasion Dialogues
2.1. Persuasion Dialogue as a Type of Dialogue
2.2. Persuasion Dialogue as a Critical Discussion
3.2. Enthymemes and Common Knowledge
4. Use of Defeasible Reasoning in Persuasion Dialogues
5. Defeasible Reasoning in the Airbag Example
6. The Formal Dialogue System CK
6.1. Limits of the Existing Models
6.2. Developing Formal Dialogue Models
6.3. Rules of the CKP Dialogue System
6.4. Argumentation in CKP
7. Dialogues Containing Arguments about Definitions
7.1. Persuasion Dialogues and Definitions
7.2. Persuasion Dialogues and Persuasive Definitions
8. Applying Argumentation Schemes to Persuasive Definitions in CKP
8.1. Definitional Moves and Argumentation Schemes
8.2. Countermoves and Critical Questions
7 Metadialogues and Redefinitions
1. Types of Definitions and Dialogue Moves
1.1. Genus-Difference Definition
1.2. Definite Description
1.3. Definition by Etymology
1.4. Definition by Essential Parts
1.5. Definition by Material Parts
1.6. Definition by Operation
1.7. Definition by Negation
1.8. Inductive Definition
1.9. Definition by Example
1.10. Definition by Metaphor
2. Acts of Defining and Dialogue Commitment Structure
2.1. A. Advancing a Definition
2.2. B. Defining for Informing
2.3. C. Defining for Reminding
2.4. D. Declaring a Definition
2.5. E. Defining for Committing
2.6. F. Implicit Definition
Emotive Language in Argumentation
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.