Comments on: Classical and Jewish forms of argument compared

By: alevin

alevin — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:39:57 +0000

Yes. This is why the place to look for models of interpersonal communication is in the area of speech and business ethics, where mutual understanding and agreement is necessary, rather than in text interpretation and in abstract debate, where it isn’t. (The style of the debate is actually not abstract, but the content is.)

By: Adrian Chan

Adrian Chan — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:20:04 +0000

The following question ran through my mind forwards and backwards regarding the Talmudic reasoning you describe: What difference does a reason make? and What reason does a difference make?

I’m reminded of The Differend by Lyotard, also, which is a brilliant examination of juxtaposition.

But I realize too that I’m approaching this from discourse and linguistic intercourse, in which Habermas’ emphasis on mutual understanding relies on validity claims made during the normal proceeding of rational speech. And I suspect that the methods you’re describing apply to text and its interpretation, less perhaps to subjective claims made vis a vis an interlocutor in the interest of reaching understanding as well as the inter-subjective binding that can accompany it (as seen by speech pragmatics).

Consensus among individuals then using a hypotactic approach would juxtapose with the type of agreement that would result from paratactic reasoning — the latter being in my mind as likely to wind up in mind-boggling frustration and a kind of suspended relational ambivalence when compared with the action coordinating agreement sought after by the former.

By: alevin

alevin — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:27:53 +0000

Frank makes the case, building on Kraemer, that Talmudic arguments are deliberately multi-voiced and inconclusive, and also that the Talmud goes to lengths to emphasize pluralist decision-making. The decisions of competing schools were both considered valid, adherents could hold to local practice, and even in the small number of areas where one might want to enforce adherence, the Talmud finds various ways to avoid it (Kraemer’s analysis is very good on this). It is a nice argument to make that these things are related.

As for relationship to mutual understanding and commitment, the Talmud makes distinctions between things that need to get decided and things that don’t; those distinctions aren’t necessarily obvious and intuitive. One interesting place to look would be the Talmud’s treatment of speech and business ethics, where there are practical needs for understanding and commitment. I wonder whether anyone has looked at those topics from this angle?

As for relationship to authority, the Talmud gives plenty of leeway to the schools of Hillel and Shammai to disagree, but Karaites and Christians were out of bounds. The room for disagreement and challenge was bounded. Frank clearly wants to apply the rhetorical strategies he describes to other contexts, and his work is not purely theoretical and historical. So one might be able to see how and whether Frank deals with the question in situations with contemporary power structures. The c.v. here has sources: http://honors.uoregon.edu/node/74

By: Adrian Chan

Adrian Chan — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:56:31 +0000

The included middle is a very good concept — I remember it from years ago when reading post-modern cultural criticism. Related conceptually but not in terms of tradition to the excluded third. I think the included middle permits ambivalence — I wonder if that is a community-oriented communication/negotiation strategy as much as it is a rhetorical move.

And I wonder where it would place the “mutual understanding” (if not also agreement) sought after by speech pragmatics. An ambivalent rhetoric sensitive to the included middle would seem to also slip the bonds of mutual and reciprocal commitment. And from the critique of power perspective, is the included middle included only and for as long as it presents no great challenge to authority? Does it serve authority insofar as authority subsumes the middle and thus neutralizes it?