The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe and compare the original goals and perspectives of both rhetoric and dialectic in theory and in practice. Dialectic is the practice and theory of conversations; rhetoric that of speeches. For theory of dialectic, this paper will turn to Aristotle's Topics and Sophistical Refutations; for theory of rhetoric, to his Rhetoric. Thus it will appear that rhetoric and dialectic are pretty close. Yet, on the other hand, there is a long tradition of (...) mutual antagonism. The paper tries to summarize the common features of, as well as the differences between, the two. To get a taste of both dialectic and rhetoric in practice the reader is invited to enter the House of Callias, as we know it from Plato's Protagoras. After this visit there remains no doubt that rhetoric and dialectic are intertwined on the level of practice. Moreover, we may look forward to their integration on the level of theory. (shrink)

Josse Clichtove represents a turning point in the history of disputation, for he combines one of the earliest accounts of the doctrinal disputation with one of the latest accounts of the obligational disputation. This paper describes the nature and significance of the theories that he offered. Particular attention is paid to the doctrines of truth, necessity and possibility which lie behind his doctrines; and also to the light which his work throws on the aims and nature of an obligational disputation.

Only recently have scholars again taken serious interest in works on disputation in the history of logic. Several recent studies have been done on the medieval and late medieval ars obligatoria, which I would venture to say, is the best known area in the history of disputation theory. Other areas in the history of disputation theory have not been sufficiently researched, including Book VIII of the Aristotelian Topics. But no period so rich in works on disputation has been more neglected (...) by modern scholarship than the period from the mid-16th century to the mid-18th century. This dissertation is a critical historical study of logic books and dissertations published between the mid-16th century to the late 18th century on methods and techniques of disputation; it thus aims to partially fill this gap in our knowledge of the history of logic. The study focuses for the most part on a substantial body of little-known logic literature by German second scholastic logicians, such as Keckermann, Johannes Dannhawerus, Jacobus Thomasius, and Andreas Kesler, to name a few. Some discussion of Leibnizian fragments on the ars disputandi is also presented. Topics treated in the dissertation include the aims and structure of post-medieval disputation, particular rules and strategies, and such topics as the logical force of various disputation moves and rules governing onus probandi. (shrink)