Abstract
This paper offers an account of the Hellnistic doctrine of krinomenon, elaborating on the idea of rhetoric’s restoration as a major tool of contemporary research and philosophical study. As opposed to theories of argumentation that identify judgment with its propositional version and establish legitimization on speaker-audience identity, failing to acknowledge difference and controversy, the doctrine of krinomenon focuses on the question posed, connecting rhetoric to judgment. The crucial difference from classical rhetoric lies in the concept of zētēma: In the doctrine of krinomenon, participants in a common inquiry are reasonable, while logos refers to judgment itself – not the audience. Whereas a proposition dismisses its own problematization, controversy, i.e. non-identity that gives meaning to utterances, is inscribed in krinomenon, which is the product of dialectic between contradictory utterances. Beyond the two opposite logics of dogmatism and relativism, difference in the doctrine of krinomenon is judgment’s very condition.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Aristoteles: 1926, The Art of Rhetoric, Harvard UP, Cambridge MA.
Aristoteles: 1955, On Sophistical Refutation, Heinemann, London.
Aristoteles: 1994, Topika [Topics], Kaktos, Athens.
P. Bassakos (1999) Epicheirema kai Krisi Nesos Athens
M. F. Burny (1996) Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Rationality of Rhetoric Oksenberg Rorty Amelie (Eds) Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric University of California Press Berkeley 88–115
Cicero, De Oratore.
E. Coleman (1998) Acts of Argumentation: Beyond Spoken Dialogue Eemeren Particlevan H. Frans (Eds) Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation SIC SAC Amsterdam 90–94
M. Dieter (1958) ArticleTitleHermagoras von Temnos Lustrum 3 58–214
I. Düring (1966) Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens Carl Winter Universitätsverlag Heidelberg
Gilman, S., Blair L., C. and Parent D. J. (eds.): 1989, Friedrich Nietzsche on Rhetoric and Language, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Jean-Baptiste Gourinat (1996) Les Stoiciens et l’ Âme PUF Paris
Habermas, J.: 1973, `Wahrheitstheorien,’ In: H. Fahrenbach (ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion, Pfulingen, pp. 211–266.
Kant, I.: 1992, `Lectures on Logic,’ In: J. Michael Young, (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
George A. Kennedy (1994) A New History of Classical Rhetoric Princeton University Press New York
Henri I. Marrou (1956) A History of Education in Antiquity, trans George Lamb, University of Wisconsin Press Wisconsin
Matthes, D.: 1958, `Hermagoras von Temnos 1904–1955’, Lustrum 3, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, pp. 58–214.
Matthes, D.: 1960, Hermagorae Temnitae Testimonia et Fragmenta, Leipzig.
Mendelson, M.: 1998, ‘Quintilian and the Pedagogy of Argument’ in van Eemeren, op. cit. pp. 559–564.
Meyer, M.: 1995, Of Problematology, trans. David Jamison, Alan Hart, Chicago University Press, Chicago.
M. Meyer (1999) Histoire de la Rhétorique des Grecs á nos Jours Le Livre de Poche Paris
C. Perelman Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958) La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Traité de l’Argumentation Université de Bruxelles Bruxelles
Quintilian: 1996, Institutio Oratoria, Harvard UP, Cambridge MA.
Solmsen, F.: 1938 ‘Aristotle and Cicero on the Orater's playing Upon the Feelings’, Classical Philology 33, pp. 390–394.
C. Taylor (1995) Philosophical Arguments Harvard University Press Cambridge
G. Thiele (1893) Hermagoras: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Rhetorik Trübner Strassburg
H. Thromm (1932) Die Thesis: Ein Beitrag zur ihrer Entstehung und Geschichte Ferndinand Schöningh Paderborn
S. Toulmin (1986) ArticleTitleDie Verleumdung der Rhetorik Neue Hefte für, Philosophie 26 55–68
Wisse, J.: 1989, Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero, A.M. Hakkert, Amsterdam.
L. Wittgenstein (1967) Philosophical Investigations Blackwell London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Theodorakakou, A. What is at Issue in Argumentation? Judgment in the Hellenistic Doctrine of Krinomenon. Argumentation 19, 239–250 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-6579-9
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-6579-9