Wayne Brockriede takes a rhetorical and humanistic approach to argument. He believes argument is a process where by people reason from one set of problematic ideas to another. His definition, in my opinion, is somewhat obvious but nonetheless does an adequate job of defining argument. First, he believes arguments are not statements but in people meaning people find arguments in the vicinity of people. Second, he believes argument is not a thing to be looked at but a concept people use, and a perspective they take. The idea of argument is an open concept, a human process, and a way of seeing, that is potentially everywhere. Although argument is everywhere, Brockriede argues that not all arguments are useful and are only useful by his six characteristics.
…show more content…
O’Keefe looks at argument as two things and very literally while Brockriede’s is more conceptual. O’Keefe’s second characteristic argument takes the word “entertained” too literally. Brockriede’s explanation for characteristic two is “If a rationale is too slender to justify a leap, then the argument is result is just a quibble.” An example of this could be when you’re arguing with someone and their justification is “it just is,” which doesn’t entertain an argument and results in just a quibble. Brockriede acknowledges O’Keefe’s argument for characteristic three saying that “if they have too little choice they need not argue, and if they have too little choice they have choice overload.” This does not exclude analytic arguments because if there is something to be argued it can be explained explicitly into choices. In O’Keefe’s argument against the fourth characteristic he uses an example of a court room where the lawyers and judges might not have uncertainty but explain something for a jury or third party. However, there is uncertainty here in the third party meaning that there is still reason to regulate uncertainty to establish the argument. O’Keefe argues that willingness to risk confrontation doesn’t apply to some arguments1. However, with no one to argue against your point against (like in a journal entry) are you really making an argument? Because he defines it as, “a process where by people reason from one set of problematic ideas to another.” Also, people do need to share a frame of reference to understand ideas. In Plato’s cave analogy, the argument was too profound for the people living in the cave to understand because their frame of reference was so limited. Finally, Brockriede does acknowledge the two forms of argument when he defines argument, “The idea of argument is an open concept, a human process, and a way of seeing,” which can be argument1 or argument2
O’Keefe looks at argument as two things and very literally while Brockriede’s is more conceptual. O’Keefe’s second characteristic argument takes the word “entertained” too literally. Brockriede’s explanation for characteristic two is “If a rationale is too slender to justify a leap, then the argument is result is just a quibble.” An example of this could be when you’re arguing with someone and their justification is “it just is,” which doesn’t entertain an argument and results in just a quibble. Brockriede acknowledges O’Keefe’s argument for characteristic three saying that “if they have too little choice they need not argue, and if they have too little choice they have choice overload.” This does not exclude analytic arguments because if there is something to be argued it can be explained explicitly into choices. In O’Keefe’s argument against the fourth characteristic he uses an example of a court room where the lawyers and judges might not have uncertainty but explain something for a jury or third party. However, there is uncertainty here in the third party meaning that there is still reason to regulate uncertainty to establish the argument. O’Keefe argues that willingness to risk confrontation doesn’t apply to some arguments1. However, with no one to argue against your point against (like in a journal entry) are you really making an argument? Because he defines it as, “a process where by people reason from one set of problematic ideas to another.” Also, people do need to share a frame of reference to understand ideas. In Plato’s cave analogy, the argument was too profound for the people living in the cave to understand because their frame of reference was so limited. Finally, Brockriede does acknowledge the two forms of argument when he defines argument, “The idea of argument is an open concept, a human process, and a way of seeing,” which can be argument1 or argument2