Basic stuff: sharing terminology Genoa 01.02.2018 Carlo Penco arguments Basic stuff: sharing terminology Genoa 01.02.2018 Carlo Penco

Structure of an argument Premise 1 Premise 2 … Support or Justify Premise n -------------- Conclusion Claim/Point/Thesis On a background of (shared) presuppositions (warrants, justifications, beliefs…)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

Kinds of arguments Deductive Arguments The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises Valid argument: Conclusion is true if the premises are true Inductive Arguments The conclusion is supported by the premises at a certain degree (of probability) Strong Argument: Conclusion is probable

Examples deduction induction If P then Q P ----- Q If it rains then I get wet It rains ------------ I get wet (valid) If P then Q Q ------- P If it rains I get wet (at 90%) I get wet -------------- It rains (strong) Inference to the best explanation

Deductive arguments VALID the conclusion is logical consequence of the premises it necessarily follows from the premises not possible that the premises are true and the conclusion false SOUND the argument is valid AND the premises are true (“grounded” [it: “fondato”]) GOOD valid, sound, but also psychologically persuasive and pragmatically interesting

The other side INVALID The conclusion does not follow from the premises UNSOUND Invalid, or valid but with false premises FALLACIOUS invalid or unsound, but psychologically plausible

Working with an example Kant Kritik der Urteilskraft There attaches to Music a certain want of urbanity from the fact that, chiefly from the character of its instruments, it extends its influence further than is desired (in the neighbourhood), and so as it were obtrudes itself, and does violence to the freedom of others who are not of the musical company. The Arts which appeal to the eyes do not do this; for we need only turn our eyes away, if we wish to avoid being impressed.

Making the premises clear (1) Music has a want for urbanity (2) The cause of (1) is that music extends its influence further that people desire (further that Kant desires ) (3) By (2) music does violence to freedom (of not listening) (4) Visual arts do not do violence to freedom (of not seeing) (5) (4) is justified by the possibility to turn our eyes away, not our ears (6) We cannot avoid music ----- Music in inferior to visual arts

Missing premise Freedom is a positive value doing violence to freedom puts a form of art as inferior

Unexpressed warrants Being free from music is absence of sound Being free from visual art is absence of vision But Music constrains a subject to hear the sound What then? Kant is speaking of negative Freedom Negative Freedom = mere absence of something (i.e. of obstacles, barriers, constraints) Music gives no freedom (you are compelled to hear) Visual art gives you freedom (enough to cose you eyes) Visual art is to be preferred

Negative and positive freedom Kant is thought to be at the origin of the distinction of negative and positive freedom, distinction developed by Isaiah Berlin NEGATIVE FREEDOM is interested in the degree to which individuals or groups suffer interference from external bodies (Kant suffered interference from musicians and singers) POSITIVE FREEDOM is more attentive to the internal factors affecting the degree to which individuals or groups act autonomously.

Counterargument What about positive freedom? Given preference to +freedom… Listening to Music permits freedom of movement (listening to music you can move around and do other activities) Watching a painting does not permit freedom of movement (is you watch a painting you have to stay in front of the painting and cannot do other actions…) –––––––––––––––––––– Visual arts are inferior to music

comment Kant was assuming a general warrant about preferring freedom as a positive value, and challenging music as being contrary to freedom But, in this particular case, he seems to assume, without further justification, a negative notion of freedom. This choice permits a counter-argument grounded on the same fundamental warrant (freedom is a positive value), interpreted on a difference aspect of freedom.

Expressed warrants Kant expressed also his presuppositions against music and gave another argument for the superiority of music (to be understood under the pressure to be free of not listening the horrible songs of prisoners nearby). Check it out! What are the hidden premises? Which the intended claim? (almost literally taken from KU) “These two species of art take quite different courses; 1(m) Music proceeds from sensations to indeterminate Ideas, 2(v) Visual arts proceeds from determinate Ideas to sensations. (v) Visual arts produce permanent impressions, (m) Music only transitory impressions. (v) The Imagination can recall the one and entertain itself pleasantly therewith; but (m) the other either vanish entirely, or if they are recalled involuntarily by the Imagination they are rather wearisome than pleasant”

References – Andrea Iacona, Argomentazione, Torino: Einaudi – Immanuel Kant Kritik der Urteilskraft https://monoskop.org/images/7/77/Kant_Immanuel_Critique_of_Judgment_1987.pdf – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Positive and Negative Liberty) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/#TwoConLib – Short presentation of Toulmin model of argument and suggestions about evalutaing arguments: http://schoolnet.org.za/twt/09/M9_argumentation.pdf (don’t buy all of it; however in the first slide you may find an example of the three major component of an argument given in Toulmin’s framework )